omni_batch_apply

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

The description reveals a multi-stage pipeline and an asynchronous apply timing (~2s after world load), which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it leaves important behavior undisclosed: what happens on validation failure, whether the batch is destructive or reversible, and whether a loaded world or bridge connection is required.

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 with no fluff: the first packs the entire verb pipeline and the second adds a crucial timing detail. Every word earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 5-parameter mutation-like tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is too sparse. It lacks prerequisites (loaded world, bridge availability), failure behavior, what the op batch format should be, and what the tool returns. The timing note is useful, but an agent is left guessing about preconditions and side effects.

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 only 40% (dryRun and filename are described), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that ops is a 'raw MapDev op batch' and that translation is part of the flow, which indirectly touches autoTranslate. But it leaves name and autoTranslate underspecified and gives no detail about op structure, so compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific multi-verb pipeline ('Translate + validate + send') with a clear resource ('raw MapDev op batch') and destination ('to the bridge'). This distinguishes it from siblings like omni_batch_validate (validation-only) and the block/item translate tools, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 implies usage for sending and applying a batch to the bridge, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The timing note ('engine applies it within ~2s of the world being loaded') hints at asynchronous context, but does not state prerequisites or when an agent might prefer a sibling tool like omni_batch_validate.

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