patch_me_progress_batch_update

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

The annotations already communicate that this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive; the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose side effects, whether updates replace or merge existing progress, permissions needed, or what happens to omitted fields. For an update operation, this leaves key behavioral details implicit.

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 short and includes the endpoint and arg section, but the first sentence "Update batch update" is redundant and wastes the front-loaded position. The structure is otherwise acceptable but not exemplary.

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 open-ended body, the presence of many sibling tools, and no explanation of what a 'batch update' actually does to progress records, the description is incomplete. The pointer to GET/schema helps but does not compensate for the lack of resource semantics, required field patterns, or behavioral outcomes.

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 sole parameter is documented only as an open object in the schema, so the description's note that body is the request payload and its pointer to GET/schema for expected fields is genuinely helpful. Still, it does not enumerate any fields or explain the batch structure, so an agent must perform extra discovery before it can construct a valid body.

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 "Update batch update," which is essentially a tautology of the tool name and does not state what resource or behavior the batch update affects. The inclusion of the endpoint /api/me/progress/batch/update adds specificity, but the prose itself is vague and does not differentiate this from sibling progress- or batch-related tools.

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 an actionable prerequisite: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before supplying the body. However, it provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as patch_me_progress_by_library_item_id_by_episode_id, and no explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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