Bulk edit documents

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds valuable detail beyond that: it names exactly which methods are destructive and states the confirmation requirement. It also adds a performance trait ('far cheaper') and explains the tag-list behavior. No contradiction with 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 compact: two sentences deliver purpose, benefit, full method inventory, and the safety rule. The method list is long but scannable and does not repeat parameter details. It overlaps the schema enum slightly, but the overlap helps an agent scan capabilities without opening the schema.

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 18 parameters, a nested set_permissions object, and no output schema, the description plus the rich schema is mostly sufficient for correct invocation. It covers all methods and the destructive-confirmation workflow. The remaining gap is that it does not state return behavior or whether the operation completes synchronously, which would matter for a bulk 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?

Schema description coverage is 94% and each parameter already carries a 'For <method>' note, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning delete_originals in the destructive list, which is already documented in the schema. The baseline 3 is therefore 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?

The description opens with a precise action ('Apply one operation to many documents at once') and a clear resource, then lists every supported operation. It also distinguishes the tool from looping update_document and calls out the unique tag-add/remove capability, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer this over looping update_document for cost reasons and identifies the tag add/remove case as the only way to avoid replacing the whole tag list. It also states that destructive methods require explicit user confirmation. However, it does not disambiguate against overlapping dedicated siblings such as delete_documents, merge_documents, rotate_documents, or edit_pdf.

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