batch

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses atomicity ("all-or-nothing"), a single open and single save around the batch, and that per-step path/preview args are stripped. It does not say what happens on a mid-batch failure (file untouched? error shape?), whether steps execute in order, or whether read-only ops like sprite_info/read_pixels are permitted mid-batch.

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?

Three dense fragments: the contract, the step shape, then a runnable example. Scope and atomicity are front-loaded, and the example justifies its length by showing how cross-tool args compose.

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 batch executor with no annotations and no output schema, the return value is entirely unspecified — does it return per-step results, a preview, or just success? That gap matters because the enum mixes mutations with reads (sprite_info, read_pixels, run_lua).

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 only 33% and the steps schema is a bare enum with additionalProperties, so the description carries the semantics: step = {op, ...that tool's args minus path/preview}, illustrated with a full example. It adds little for `path` and leaves `preview` to the schema's short note, keeping it short of a 5.

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 scope: apply many steps to one sprite in a single call. The phrase "...that tool's args" explicitly ties it to the sibling tools whose operations it bundles, so an agent can tell it apart from calling draw/edit/palette individually.

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?

Implies the use case clearly (multiple steps on one sprite, one open/one save) and shows a concrete three-step example of a typical composition. It never states exclusions such as when to prefer individual tool calls, or that steps cannot span multiple sprites/files beyond the "one sprite" phrasing.

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