update_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions a batch limit of 100, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid inputs, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core action ('Update the status of multiple records') and includes a practical constraint ('max 100'). There is no wasted wording, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly for an agent.

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 mutation with nested objects in 'records'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the expected output format, error conditions, or how status updates interact with the system (e.g., triggering workflows). For a mutation tool handling multiple records, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use by an agent.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('app' and 'records'). It implies batch processing via 'multiple records (max 100)', but this doesn't clarify individual parameter semantics like the meaning of 'action' or 'assignee' in the records array. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('status of multiple records'), specifying it handles multiple records with a maximum batch size of 100. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_status' (singular) and 'update_record'/'update_records' (general updates vs. status-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what system or context these records belong to (e.g., database, workflow), leaving some ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose it over 'update_status' (for single records) or 'update_records' (for broader updates), or any specific scenarios where status updates are appropriate. The lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide between similar tools without trial and error.

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