batch_documents

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: sequential processing, a permission check per document, per-ID results, partial success, and a hard stop on auth or rate-limit failure. It also explicitly states it never permanently purges and never expands a search result, which clarifies the destructiveHint=true boundary. This is exactly the operational detail annotations cannot carry.

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 but front-loaded: the primary selection rule comes first, then capabilities, then failure semantics, then non-goals. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-chained sentences are slightly heavy 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?

With an output schema present, return-shape detail is unnecessary, and the description covers selection scope, action set, ordering, failure mode, and explicit non-goals. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly across all seven action variants.

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 itself documents each action's const and the documentIds range, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the action vocabulary in one place and stating the 1–25 ID limit and the no-search-expansion rule, letting an agent choose the right oneOf branch without reading every variant.

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 opens with a precise scope statement — batch operations for multiple explicitly selected documents sharing one action — and immediately contrasts it with the single-document siblings. It enumerates the supported actions (move, set_category, add_tag, remove_tag, trash, restore, refresh_index), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'for one document prefer the matching single-document tool,' plus the constraint that it never expands a search result and that version restore is a separate tool. The 1–25 ID bound is called out for automation compatibility. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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