Bulk edit metadata objects

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags that this is destructive; the description adds operational value by specifying that deletion is permanent and instructing the agent to confirm with the user before calling. This is important behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not elaborate on set_permissions overwrite behavior, but the schema already describes that.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the operation and scope, the second delivers a critical safety warning. No wasted words, and the most important action verbs are 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?

For a complex bulk operation with six parameters, a nested permissions object, and no output schema, the description is minimal. The safety warning is excellent, and the schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks guidance about alternatives, prerequisites, or the response after deletion. It is adequate but leaves routing and edge-case decisions to the agent.

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 description clarifies the meaning of the operation and object_type enums ('Delete or set permissions' and listing the object types), and adds the semantic that deletion is permanent. However, schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters like owner or the full structure of permissions, though the schema's permissions field already carries some weight.

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 names specific verbs ('Delete or set permissions') and specific resources ('tags, correspondents, document types or storage paths'). The phrase 'many ... at once' clearly separates this bulk tool from the singular per-object sibling tools like update_tag or delete_correspondent, so an agent can identify what it does without opening the schema.

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 implies usage for bulk edits by saying 'many ... at once', and the permanence warning gives an important conditional caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over individual update/delete tools, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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