concept_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: atomicity ('one commit and log entry; a failure leaves the KB untouched'), hard limits (50 operations, 512 KiB decoded, patches count edits), and the create-only vs update semantics of if_match. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: atomicity and limits lead, operation semantics follow. Every sentence adds distinct information; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description still discloses the return shape (id, content_hash, findings per operation) along with limits, atomicity guarantees, and operation modes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly and interpret results 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%, but the schema lists flat fields with no per-field meaning. The description adds real semantic value by mapping fields to operation types — if_match optional means create-only write, if_match required means patch, index_entry only valid on a creating write — which the schema alone does not convey.

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 pair (write/patch) on a specific resource (distinct concepts) with the defining scope constraint: atomic all-or-nothing batching. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the single-operation concept_write and concept_patch siblings.

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 'Not covered' sentence explicitly lists what this tool does not do (delete, move, expand, assets, other index edits), which routes the agent to siblings without naming them. It also clarifies that patch requires if_match while write does not, giving clear selection criteria between the two operation modes, though it never names the alternative tools directly.

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