Bulk Edit Documents

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: writes happen before the OK response, search-index rebuild is queued in the background, there is an eventual-consistency window for search, and metadata operations create a bulk_update task with a task_id. This goes well beyond the boolean annotations provided.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently explains the async behavior and how to trace the background task. Every sentence adds operational value with no redundancy or filler.

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 destructive, complex bulk tool, the description covers side effects, consistency, and task tracking well; the output schema exists and the input schema enumerates operations. It is slightly incomplete in that parameter semantics are left entirely to the schema, but the agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not explain operation values, the ids array, or the parameters object. It only generically references 'metadata operations,' leaving the agent to infer semantics from the raw schema. This is a notable gap given the large operation enum.

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 opens with 'Apply a bulk operation to a set of documents,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling bulk_edit_tags/correspondents/document_types tools, but the document resource target makes the purpose sufficiently distinct.

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 gives actionable usage context: it warns that a following search_documents call may miss edits for seconds to minutes, while list_documents and get_document reflect changes immediately. It also tells the agent how to track completed work via list_tasks and wait_for_task. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool versus single-document alternatives.

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