batch_generate_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether existing scripts are overwritten, whether the operation is asynchronous, whether partial failures can occur, or what side effects the batch operation has. The schema's regenerate parameter hints at overwrite behavior, but the description itself is silent on it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It quickly communicates the core action and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 batch operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits important operational context such as return behavior, async/sync execution, whether the project must already contain slides, and what happens when some slides already have scripts.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the batch/all-slides framing but does not clarify the optional slide_ids subset, and it does not provide meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Generate narration scripts'), a clear resource ('ALL slides in a project'), and a distinguishing mode ('one batch operation'). This makes it easy to differentiate from the sibling generate_script tool, which presumably handles a single slide.

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 phrase 'ALL slides in a project in one batch operation' implies the tool is for bulk script generation rather than per-slide generation. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (generate_script) or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance remains mostly implied.

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