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

Annotations give the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds real behavioral detail: the batch takes the next sequential number and queue position, works start planned in the order given, the result carries batch-scoped references like `4-1`, and the call can complete a workflow planning step. It doesn't disclose retry/idempotency behavior in prose, but requestId is covered in the schema.

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 purpose leads, followed by naming rules, resulting behavior, and workflow interactions, so it is well front-loaded. It is dense and the final sentence packs multiple workflow conditions, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains what the call returns (batch-scoped work references ready for commit messages), the numbering/queue side effects, and the workflow-step and edgeId interactions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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: edgeId 'can name the Batch stage route so no separate resume_workflow call is needed' and works are created 'in the order given' with resulting batch-scoped refs. The name format is restated from the schema pattern rather than extended, so it is not a 5.

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 ('Create a planned batch and its planned works in one call') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling create_work, which the description says adds a Work to an existing Batch. An agent can tell the two apart 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?

Explicitly frames this as 'the normal way to plan a batch once its scope is agreed' and names the alternative (create_work) with its distinct use case. It adds conditional guidance for runId when multiple runs wait on a Batch and for edgeId to avoid a separate resume_workflow call.

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