cdp_batch

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description dramatically expands on this: side effects across multiple targets or the entire profile, child target tabId inheritance, whole-batch policy checks before dispatch, exact blocked response fields (raw_cdp_blocked, delivery_state=undelivered, retry_safe=false, retryable=false), and the need to inspect state before retrying. This is rich behavioral context that far exceeds what annotations convey, with no contradiction.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the critical side-effect warning and then details policy, delivery, and retry behavior. While not broken into sections, every sentence adds value. It is lengthy but appropriate given the tool's complexity and risk profile.

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 tool with destructive potential, the description thoroughly covers safety, policy enforcement, delivery states, and retry guidance. However, it omits parameter semantics (batch_json format, session_id purpose) and does not clarify the output schema's return values. Given the output schema exists, that may be acceptable, but the parameter gap makes the description incomplete for an agent attempting correct invocation.

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 carries full responsibility for explaining the parameters. It only mentions passing 'the full JSON object with cmd='batch'' for batch_json but does not elaborate on its structure, requirements, or format. session_id is entirely unaddressed. This is a significant gap for a tool with only two parameters.

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 never explicitly states the tool's core action (e.g., 'Send a batch of CDP commands'). It opens with a warning about side effects and later mentions passing a JSON object with cmd='batch', which implies the purpose but leaves it to inference. It does distinguish itself from siblings by focusing on batch behavior, but the primary function is not stated 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 description provides substantial operational guidance: how to invoke (cmd='batch'), the lab-mode requirement for high-risk methods, and the safe-mode blocking behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like cdp_command (e.g., 'use this for multiple commands in one atomic batch') or when not to use it. The guidance is more about safety constraints than decision-making between tools.

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