crm_batch_update_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, it doesn't address critical aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on partial failures, rate limits, whether updates are atomic, what the response format looks like, or any side effects. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key operational detail ('in a single request'). Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise while still communicating the essential function.

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 batch mutation tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral characteristics, error handling, or what constitutes a successful operation. The description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective 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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' represents (despite having an enum), what 'inputs' should contain, the structure of properties objects, or any validation rules. With 2 parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, this is a significant gap.

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') and resource ('CRM objects'), and specifies the operational context ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from single-update tools like crm_update_object by emphasizing batch processing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch update tools like crm_batch_update_companies/contacts/leads.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for batch updates (crm_batch_update_companies, crm_batch_update_contacts, crm_batch_update_leads) and single-update tools, but the description doesn't explain when this general batch update is preferred over type-specific batch updates or when batch operations are appropriate versus individual updates.

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