batch_edit

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral detail: it creates one new revision, performs no intermediate copies, aborts on invalid steps before any write, and does not publish/export. These traits are critical for safe invocation.

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 dense yet well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then enumerates step types, and ends with behavioral constraints. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the complexity.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description only covers the steps parameter and general behavior. It omits explanations for dry_run and include_plan, which are likely important for callers, and provides no return-value expectations. For a complex batch operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the 'steps' parameter structure (listing each action and its fields), but does not clarify the other parameters (name, new_name, dry_run, include_plan). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap for four parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Apply ... save') and resource ('1-100 ordered editing steps ... ONE new revision'), and lists the allowed step actions. It clearly differentiates from single-edit and publish tools by emphasizing the batch nature and the single revision output.

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 implies usage for batch editing by stating 'Apply 1-100 ordered editing steps' and notes it does not publish/export, which clarifies scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_draft or publish_draft, leaving some inference required.

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