conduyt_bulk_edit_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral facts: it is a mutation, it fans a single updates object across all ids, and it needs contacts:edit. However, it says nothing about atomicity, partial-failure behavior when some ids are invalid, or the size limit on the ids array – material concerns for a bulk write tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the alternative-tool routing and the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative, and auth. The remaining gap is bulk-write edge behavior (partial failures, id limits), which keeps it from a 5.

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% and both parameters are fully described in the schema, including the customFields merge rule. The description's 'one updates object → all ids' reinforces the same-value semantics but adds no syntax, limits, or field-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apply the SAME field changes to many contacts at once') and makes the payload semantics explicit ('one updates object → all ids'). It also names the sibling tool that handles the contrasting case, so an agent can distinguish it from conduyt_bulk_update_contacts without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (identical changes across many contacts) and when-not-to-use (different values per contact), routing the agent to conduyt_bulk_update_contacts. It also adds the prerequisite 'Requires contacts:edit', so the agent knows the auth gate before calling.

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