Bulk-update documents matching a filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the critical safety default (dry run, apply=false changes nothing), explains how to execute (apply=true), and describes patch merging. It doesn't mention permissions, lock handling, or reversibility, but the most important behavioral trait—the no-op by default—is clearly highlighted.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and the most important safety warning. The example is concrete and useful, and every clause earns its place. No redundant fluff.

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 bulk-mutation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational concerns: what the tool does, how the patch is applied, and the dry-run safety mechanism. It doesn't explain the interaction between organization params or maxItems/ignoreLock, but the schema provides their literal definitions. Overall it's sufficient for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

Since the schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining the patch as a partial DocumentUpdate merged with each document's id and providing a concrete patch shape. It also clarifies apply semantics beyond the schema's simple 'false = dry run; true = actually write'.

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 action: 'Find every document matching a wflow query and apply the SAME partial patch to each.' This is a specific verb+resource with scope, and it distinguishes this bulk tool from singular tools like wflow_update_document or read-only search 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?

The description provides a concrete example use case ('set all documents with order Z01 to cost centre Centrála') and clearly explains the dry-run vs apply flow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like wflow_update_document for single-document updates, but the bulk-update intent is unmistakable from context.

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