conduyt_bulk_update_contacts

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 usefully discloses the required permission scope (contacts:edit) and the per-row id requirement, but says nothing about partial-failure semantics, atomicity, size limits, or what the call returns — meaningful gaps for a bulk mutation.

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 short sentences plus a permission clause, with the differentiating scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause 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 bulk mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what it does, when to use it, and the auth requirement. It stops short of describing result/error behavior, which an agent executing many per-row updates would benefit from knowing.

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 the single 'updates' parameter is already documented down to the example shape in the schema. The description restates the per-row id+fields idea, adding emphasis but no new syntax or constraints beyond the structured field.

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 (apply), resource (field changes per contact), and the distinguishing scope (DIFFERENT changes per row in one call). This contrasts directly with conduyt_bulk_edit_contacts, so an agent can tell the two bulk tools apart without reading 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (conduyt_bulk_edit_contacts) and the condition that selects it ('same change across many'). Routing is unambiguous.

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