batch

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

With destructiveHint=true already flagging that batched writes mutate state, the description goes well beyond annotations: it discloses the default continue-on-error semantics, that results are reported individually, the stop_on_error abort behavior, and that transaction folds the run into a single undo step. These are precisely the traits an agent needs to reason about partial failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the round-trip-saving rationale, then behavior, then a compact return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; only the redundant restatement of the two boolean flags keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly fills that gap with an explicit return shape (success, per-index results with ok/payload/error, stopped_early). Combined with the default/abort/transaction semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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% and the schema already explains stop_on_error and transaction, so the baseline is 3. The description lifts this by clarifying that ANY bridge-dispatched command can appear in the list, which materially expands the mental model of the commands array beyond the bare schema text.

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 operation (run several commands back-to-back in one game-thread pass) and frames it as a meta-tool that collapses N calls into 1, which cleanly separates it from every single-command sibling. An agent can tell immediately that batch is the fan-in wrapper rather than a renamed individual command.

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 way to cut N calls to 1 when you are authoring in bulk' names the scenario that selects this tool over invoking siblings one at a time. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. don't batch when order-dependent reads are needed), so it is strong but not complete.

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