Apply multiple type edits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, and it discloses almost nothing: whether edits are atomic, what happens on partial failure, whether stop_on_error affects already-applied edits, or whether the target database must be open. 'Return aggregate status' is the only behavioral hint, and the output schema already covers the return shape.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally fine. However, the brevity here reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a nested batch-mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, but the description omits the semantics unique to batching: ordering of edits, error behavior interplay with stop_on_error, and the relationship between the nested edits array and the aggregate status returned. For a nested-object mutation tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 the schema already documents batch.edits, stop_on_error, and instance_id precisely. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apply multiple type edits') and the batch scope is clear from the name and description. It does not name or contrast with the obvious siblings (set_type, declare_type, infer_types), so an agent must infer when the batch variant is preferred.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the single-edit tools in the same family (set_type, declare_type). Nothing states whether this is preferable for bulk edits, what prerequisites exist, or in what situations the agent should avoid it.

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