update_global_source_elements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the two-step process, the default dry_run behavior, the requirement for explicit user approval, the risk of data loss, and the specific merge rules for different field types (style/config/specials shallow merge, events/bindings replace). This is exemplary transparency.

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 yet information-dense, organized as numbered steps with an important warning and merge rules. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the steps explain the required workflow, and the final sentence clarifies field-level behavior. No wasted words.

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 batch mutation tool with a required confirmation step, the description covers the process, the risk, the merge rules, and hints at the expected return (diff from step 1). No output schema exists, but the description does not need to detail return values because step 1 explicitly returns a diff. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of dry_run (preview vs apply), tying it into the workflow, and clarifying the merge behavior for fields within the updates array, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Batch update multiple elements in one global source,' which clearly specifies the action (update), the resource (global source elements), and the batch aspect, distinguishing it from the singular update_global_source_element and the broader update_global_source. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

The description provides a detailed two-step workflow with explicit instructions on when to call the tool (dry_run=true for preview, then dry_run=false only after user confirmation). It clearly states when not to proceed, but it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools beyond the implied batch vs single distinction. Strong context and safety guidance.

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