emails_batch_update

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. 'Update multiple email records' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what the response contains. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized for a tool with a clear core function, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and scope.

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 a batch mutation tool with complex nested parameters (1 top-level parameter with array of objects containing multiple properties), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, how to identify records, or what happens upon success/failure. The agent lacks critical context for proper 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 for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'multiple email records' which hints at the 'inputs' array parameter, but provides no details about what constitutes a record (id + properties), required fields, or the structure of properties. It doesn't explain the nested schema for email properties at all, leaving critical parameter semantics uncovered.

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') and resource ('multiple email records') with the operational context ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from individual update tools like 'emails_update' by specifying batch capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch operations like 'emails_batch_create' or 'emails_batch_archive' beyond the verb 'update'.

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 batch updating is preferred over individual updates, or how it differs from other batch operations like 'emails_batch_create' or 'emails_batch_archive'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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