Update multiple item field values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes field values (a mutation) and references value formats from plaky_create_item, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose and key parameter detail. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 has 4 parameters, one nested object, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. It explains the critical 'fields' parameter well. However, it could optionally mention return values or error handling, but this is not a significant gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'fields' is an object keyed by field key or title with per-type formats (e.g., examples). This clarifies the parameter usage beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change several field values on an item in one request.' The verb 'change' and resource 'field values' are specific. The mention of 'several' and 'one request' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'plaky_update_item_field' (singular).

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?

The description implies that this tool should be used when multiple fields need updating in one request, which is efficient. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, the contrast with the singular sibling tool is clear. The guidance is adequate but could be more explicit.

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