tokportal_create_bundles_bulk

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

Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint: false, but not readOnly), yet the description fully discloses: credits debited immediately on POST (not at publication), batch-level capacity checks, deterministic allowance consumption, and rollback on partial failure. It also details edge cases like crossing allowance slots and auto-cancellation of unconfigured advanced warming purchases after 14 days. No contradiction with 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 detailed but not overly long given the complexity. It front-loads the core action and atomicity, then covers edge cases and parameter nuances. A minor deduction: the niche warming vs advanced warming explanation could be slightly more streamlined, but overall every sentence adds value.

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 high complexity (2 parameters with nested body, 15+ sub-properties, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: payment timing, capacity checks, failure behavior, advanced warming options, and parameter relationships. It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly without needing to consult documentation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the atomicity context and the role of 'external_ref' (not unique, not idempotency), and elaborates on 'advanced_warming_terms' vs 'advanced_warming_terms_count' trade-offs. However, it does not describe every parameter's effect in detail (e.g., 'niche_warming_instructions' is mentioned only in the schema). Still, the description significantly enriches understanding of complex parameters.

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 verb ('Create bundles in bulk'), resource ('bundles'), and adds critical context: atomic creation checkout, immediate debiting, and batch-level behavior. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'tokportal_create_bundle' by emphasizing bulk and atomicity.

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 explicitly specifies when to use this tool: for bulk creation with atomic debits and capacity checks. It explains prerequisites ('contract_bundle_allowance', 'getCreditCosts'), behavior on failure ('entire batch rolls back'), and alternatives for per-account target configuration ('PUT /bundles/{id}/warming-terms'). Also clarifies that 'external_ref' is not for retry, directing to 'Idempotency-Key'.

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