Bulk update commissions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the batch constraint that every commission receives the identical status, but it omits the confirm=true requirement, the account scoping, and the mutual exclusivity of payload vs payload_file — meaningful for a destructive batch mutation.

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?

One short sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the details flagged in other dimensions.

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 destructive bulk mutation with a nested payload, a confirm gate, an account parameter, and an alternate payload_file path — and no output schema — the description is too thin. An agent must get the exclusivity rules, the confirm requirement, and the account semantics entirely from the schema.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents almost all parameters, including the payload/commissionIds constraints and the confirm flag. The description adds only the 'same status' and 'up to 100' framing, which largely restates the enum and maxItems already in the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (bulk update), resource (commissions), and scope (up to 100, same status), which cleanly separates it from the singular update_commission and from bulk_update_links. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative sibling, but the batch/same-status framing makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not guidance. 'With the same status' implicitly signals that per-record statuses require update_commission, but the agent must infer this rather than being told, and no prerequisites (confirm, account, payload exclusivity) are mentioned.

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