Batch Update Blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions transactional behavior ('single transaction') and efficiency, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether updates are atomic or partial, error handling for failed updates, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 highly concise and well-structured: three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, efficiency benefit, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key 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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format ('results for each update' is vague), error scenarios, or provide enough parameter guidance. For a mutation tool with zero structured support, this leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.

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. It mentions 'attributes to change and/or new XML content' for updates, which adds some meaning to the 'updates' parameter. However, it doesn't explain 'graph_id' or 'document_id' parameters at all, leaving two of three parameters semantically unclear. The partial coverage is insufficient.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update multiple blocks in a single transaction.' It specifies the resource (blocks) and verb (update), and distinguishes it from 'update_block' by highlighting batch efficiency. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools like 'write_document' or 'sparql_update' that might also modify content.

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 clear context for usage: 'More efficient than individual update_block calls.' This explicitly positions it as an alternative to 'update_block' for bulk operations. It doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention other alternatives like 'write_document', but the efficiency guidance is helpful.

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