update_episodefile_bulk

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), is idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and is not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the endpoint path and the recommendation to consult the schema, but doesn't describe side effects, required permissions, or response behavior. Given annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 extremely concise: three lines with no fluff. It includes the endpoint, a parameter hint, and a pointer to schema discovery. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is minimal but provides a key pointer to discover the expected body structure. However, it doesn't mention that this is a bulk operation affecting multiple episode files, nor does it explain potential partial failures or validation rules. Given there is an output schema (not shown), some return behavior is implicitly covered, but for a complex bulk update tool, more context would help.

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 schema has 0% coverage of the 'body' parameter – it's just an object with additionalProperties true. The description tells the agent to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects,' which provides a strategy to understand the parameter. This adds value beyond the schema but does not describe any fields itself, so it partially compensates.

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 states 'Update EpisodeFile' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The endpoint path 'PUT /api/v3/episodefile/bulk' and the tool name both signal a bulk operation, distinguishing it from singular update tools like update_episodefile_by_id. However, it doesn't explicitly explain what 'bulk' entails or differentiate from update_episodefile_editor, so it's not fully precise.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (update_episodefile_by_id, update_episodefile_editor). The only advice is to read the GET or /schema endpoint first, which is about discovering fields, not about choosing this tool. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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