update_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions a batch limit, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates are atomic, what happens on partial failures, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key constraint without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every element serves a clear 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, authentication requirements, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_record'. The batch limit is mentioned but not explained, leaving important contextual gaps for proper tool invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('app' and 'records') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the 'max 100 records' constraint, which relates to the 'records' array parameter. However, it doesn't explain the structure of update data or provide context beyond what the schema already specifies, meeting 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 multiple records') and specifies the resource ('in a kintone app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'update_record' by indicating bulk capability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by providing meaningful context beyond the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_record' or 'update_status'. It mentions a constraint ('max 100 records') but doesn't explain why this limit exists or what happens if exceeded. There are no prerequisites, error conditions, or explicit alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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