Run several actions at once

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the structure of steps ({tool, args}), the flexibility of tool names (bare or prefixed), and the output inlining behavior (failures and last step by default, use 'include' for more). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function and benefit, explaining the step format and naming, and clarifying output behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 batching tool without an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, how steps are structured, and what the response includes. It could explicitly mention ordering guarantees or error handling beyond stopOnError, but the schema already documents 'Steps to run in order' and the description mentions failures, so it is adequately complete.

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. However, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the step structure in detail, how tool names can be prefixed, and the default output inlining behavior tied to the 'include' parameter. This enriches the schema's parameter definitions.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'several Blinkwire actions in ONE call', clearly distinguishing it from the individual browser_* sibling tools. It conveys a specific, actionable purpose with no ambiguity.

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 strongly implies when to use it: 'the biggest latency and context win available' suggests using it for multiple actions. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide between batching and single calls.

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