Batch Update

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the atomic transaction semantics and the maximum of 100 IDs. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags and helps the agent understand side effects and limits.

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 a concise two-sentence text that front-loads the action and resources. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague content.

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 (batch operation, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description covers key constraints (atomicity, max 100 IDs) and the schema documents parameters. It does not explain error behavior or what happens when IDs exceed the limit, but this is a minor gap for a well-specified tool.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little additional semantic value. It lists 'status, metadata, or tags' but does not explain the 'project' parameter beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action (update), resource (multiple nodes), and specific fields (status, metadata, tags). It also highlights the atomic transaction and the 100 ID limit, which differentiates it from sibling tools like update_node (single node) and batch_create_nodes (creation).

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 provides clear context by specifying it is for multiple nodes and atomic transactions, implying it is the tool for bulk updates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use update_node for a single node', so it stops short of a 5.

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