Bulk edit documents

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag the operation as mutating/destructive, so the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it runs asynchronously and `delete` moves documents to trash rather than permanently deleting them, with `confirm: true` required. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent predict consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, front-loaded sentences communicate the core operation, the parameter-selection rule, and the two most important behavioral cautions. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundancy with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description correctly focuses on the non-obvious facts: asynchronous execution and trash/confirm behavior. The schema covers parameter-method mappings, though the conditional parameter requirements across the nine methods are not fully enforced or spelled out in either place, leaving minor ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter details are already well documented. The description only reinforces the general principle of passing only method-relevant parameters and highlights the `confirm` flag for delete, without adding new parameter-level semantic detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete action, 'Apply one operation to many documents at once,' which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes the tool from single-document operations like paperless_update_document without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives useful operating guidance: 'Supply only the parameters the chosen method needs' and calls out the delete confirmation requirement. However, it never explicitly says when to choose bulk edit over single-document alternatives, so the tool-selection guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.