create_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 mentions the batch limit (100 records) but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., partial failures), permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if the app_id is invalid. For a write operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 in Japanese that conveys the core purpose and key constraint (max 100 records) without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on error conditions, response format, authentication requirements, and how it differs from similar tools (e.g., create_record, upsert_records). Given the complexity of bulk creation and the absence of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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 fully documents both parameters (app_id and records). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for records or constraints on app_id values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('creates multiple records in bulk') and the resource ('kintone app'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_record' (singular) or 'upsert_records', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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 'create_record' (for single records) or 'upsert_records' (for create-or-update operations). It mentions the maximum batch size (100 records) but doesn't explain trade-offs or prerequisites for bulk creation.

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