run_batch

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

Given the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: atomicity and rollback behavior, and that a failure leaves the scene intact. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining transaction semantics and how failures are handled.

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 well-structured with line breaks, a clear format definition, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value: purpose, step schema, atomic behavior, usage preference, and example. No redundancy or fluff.

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 complex batching tool, the description covers the key aspects: what steps look like, how atomicity works, and why to use it. It does not elaborate on the `label` parameter or behavior when `atomic=false`, but the output schema and annotations provide some context, and the core semantics are well covered.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It thoroughly explains `steps` with a precise format and concrete example, and clarifies the effect of `atomic=true`. The `label` parameter is not mentioned, but it is a minor omission given the default.

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 'Ejecuta varias operaciones como UNA transacción con rollback,' which is a specific verb plus resource, clearly distinguishing it from individual sibling tools. It explains the batch nature and transaction semantics, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states a preference over chaining individual calls ('Prefiérela a encadenar llamadas sueltas') and explains why (avoids half-built scenes). It does not mention specific scenarios where the tool should not be used, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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