batch_update_opportunity

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: parallel HTTP requests, default concurrency cap of 5 (via env var), return structure with results and summary, partial failures possible, no rollback. It also details side effects like milestone changes triggering automations, owner-team interactions, etc., adding significant value beyond the annotations.

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 dense paragraph, but it is well-structured with key information front-loaded. While it is lengthy due to the complexity of the tool, every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be splitting into sections for readability.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format and addresses edge cases, side effects, and error scenarios. It covers all aspects needed for correct invocation, making it comprehensive for a batch mutation tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds rich semantic context for every parameter. For example, it explains the items array cap and shape, the null rejection for partyId, side effects and warnings for milestoneId, constraints for probability, and detailed interactions for ownerId, teamId, and fields. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool updates 1-50 opportunities in parallel, with the same input shape as update_opportunity but wrapped in an items array. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_opportunity, batch_update_party, etc., by explicitly mentioning batch usage.

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 explicit scenarios for use: mass stage transitions, owner reassignments, value adjustments. It advises using this tool instead of N sequential update_opportunity calls, and warns about partial failures and no rollback, providing clear guidance on when and how to use it.

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