execute_record_batch

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true) by disclosing the non-atomic change-set model, preflight validation before dispatch, per-item outcome reporting, the stop-on-unknown-results safety rule, and cancellation handling. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before committing destructive writes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb, scope, and batching model; each subsequent clause carries a distinct behavioral fact with no filler.

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 destructive, multi-operation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers execution model, failure semantics, and outcome reporting. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance versus execute_record_transaction, which an agent would still need to infer.

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 86%, so aliases, dry_run, chunk_size, if_match, and operation variants are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the 100-item cap and chunking model, adding little syntax or format detail beyond structured fields.

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 verb and resource ('Execute up to 100 validated record mutations in native $batch chunks') with a clear scope. The non-atomic, per-change-set semantics implicitly distinguish it from the transactional sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 behavior described (no rollback across operations, preflight, per-item outcomes) implies this is for multi-mutation batches where partial success is acceptable, but the description never states when to choose this over execute_record_transaction or when to avoid it. Usage is left to inference.

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