edit_batch_complete

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

In the absence of annotations, the description does useful behavioral disclosure: it says the call is 'bounded ephemeral WORKING impact' and lists what it does NOT return ('no prompt, summary, raw code, database write, or receipt'). This is genuine transparency about side effects and return behavior. However, it does not explain what 'WORKING impact' means concretely or whether any state is mutated, so it is not a full 5.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and immediately states key constraints and exclusions. It is concise and every phrase carries information. Minor clarity issues ('WORKING', 'receipt') are present, but the structure is efficient.

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 annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and 43 sibling tools, this description is too thin for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains the result's general shape but not parameter semantics, prerequisites, or when it applies; the exclusion list helps but does not compensate for the missing core usage context.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. The name hints at batch completion, and the schema defines fields, but an agent gets no guidance on the meaning of 'now', 'mode', 'event_source', 'batch_id', or 'agent_owned_untracked_paths', nor on their relationships. With 0% coverage and no compensating prose, this is a clear gap.

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 uses a verb ('Queue') and a resource ('client-neutral completed-edit event'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, 'completed-edit event' is niche jargon and the tool name edit_batch_complete already conveys the same idea, so the description mostly restates the name rather than explaining what the tool actually does or what a caller should expect. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as project_change or session_checkpoint_setzen.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The phrase 'client-neutral' implies a constraint but not when an agent should choose this over related project_* or session_* tools. With 43 siblings and no usage direction, an agent is left to infer applicability.

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