Executes up to 20 validated UI or system operations sequentially to reduce round trips, excluding screenshots, shell, and file mutations.
Run up to 20 validated UI/system operations sequentially to reduce round trips. Screenshots, shell and file mutations are intentionally excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes | ||
| failFast | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive, non-read-only behavior, and the description adds that operations are validated, limited to 20, executed sequentially, and that certain operation categories are intentionally excluded. This enriches the behavioral picture beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss failure behavior.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion note is a useful, compact scope boundary. Every sentence earns its place.
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 composite tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description omits critical details such as failFast behavior, what 'validated' means, what valid method values are, and what the tool returns. An agent cannot fully predict execution semantics without additional information.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds 'up to 20' and 'sequentially', which mostly restates schema constraints, and it says nothing about failFast, how steps are structured, or what methods are valid. An agent would struggle to construct steps correctly.
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 clearly states the tool runs a batch of UI/system operations sequentially to reduce round trips, and explicitly lists what is excluded. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from single-operation tools, though it does not name a sibling directly.
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 'to reduce round trips' gives a clear reason to use this tool, and the sentence about exclusions tells agents not to use it for screenshots, shell, or file mutations. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' alternative routing, but the context is strong enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.