batch_create_cliff_vesting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the parameters token, unlock_time, ecosystem are shared across the batch, but does not mention side effects, atomicity, permissions, or error handling.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and adds only essential detail. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the complexity of a batch operation with multiple arrays, the description lacks important details such as return value, array length matching, optionality of memos, and error behavior. It is insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

The schema coverage is 50%, and the description adds value by clarifying that token, unlock_time, and ecosystem are single values shared across all vestings, while beneficiaries and amounts are per-vesting arrays. However, it does not explain memos or constraints on amounts.

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 verb 'batch create' and the resource 'cliff vestings', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_cliff_vesting' by specifying that all vestings share the same token, unlock_time, and ecosystem.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_cliff_vesting' or 'batch_create_gradual_vesting'. The sharing constraint is implied but not contrasted with other options.

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