batch_update_opportunity

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that it performs parallel HTTP updates, has a default concurrency cap of 5, can have partial failures with no rollback, and returns a detailed results summary.

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?

Every sentence adds value. It starts with the core action, then provides usage context, then technical details about concurrency and return format. No redundant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape and behavior (partial failures, no rollback). It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 single parameter 'items' is fully described in the schema, and the description adds significant context: each item is the same shape as update_opportunity call, id is required, others optional, capped at 50 with rationale about rate budget.

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 it updates 1–50 opportunities in parallel, distinguishes itself from sequential calls by mentioning 'not N sequential update_opportunity calls', and lists specific use cases (mass stage transitions, owner reassignments, value adjustments).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (mass stage transitions, owner reassignments, value adjustments) and contrasts with sequential individual calls. Also notes partial failures and no rollback, and mentions concurrency cap and environment variable for configuration.

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