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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it discloses that the batch takes the next sequential number and queue position, that works start planned in the given order, what the result contains (batch-scoped references like `4-1`), and that in a workflow run it completes the planning step and any open Evaluate-the-idea step. These are real side effects an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and keeps to about five sentences, each carrying distinct information (naming convention, numbering/ordering, sibling contrast, runId, workflow completion). Some sentences are long and pack multiple clauses, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers naming constraints, ordering, numbering side effects, the shape of the returned references, and workflow integration. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the ordering of `works` matters ('works start planned in the order given'), the returned reference format ties to `works`, and runId/edgeId are explained in workflow terms. It does not add much for `metrics` or `requestId`, which the schema already documents.

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+resource (create a planned batch and its planned works) and explicitly scopes it as a single combined call. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_work ('create_work adds a Work to an existing Batch'), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Says this is 'the normal way to plan a batch once its scope is agreed', names the alternative create_work, and gives the condition for runId ('When several workflow runs wait for a Batch, pass runId'). The workflow-run context (completes the planning step, edgeId avoids a separate resume_workflow call) is explicit when-to-use guidance.

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