omni_batch_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical safety property ('WITHOUT sending it'), specifies return values (cleaned batch + errors/warnings), and gives concrete validation examples. An agent knows exactly what side effects to expect (none) and what the tool will report.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the most important safety fact ('WITHOUT sending it') before the return-value summary and examples. Every clause earns its place; 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?

Return structure and safety are well covered, and the main parameter is documented in the schema. However, name and autoTranslate semantics are missing and no output schema compensates, so the description is not fully complete for all three parameters.

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 33% — only 'ops' is documented. The description does not explain the meaning of 'name' or 'autoTranslate', and 'Translate' only weakly hints at the autoTranslate parameter. It adds no value for the undocumented parameters, so the low schema coverage is not compensated.

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+resource: 'Translate and validate a raw MapDev op batch'. The phrase 'WITHOUT sending it' clearly distinguishes this from applying tools like omni_batch_apply and tells an agent exactly what scope the tool operates in.

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 clearly implies a dry-run/pre-validation use case before an actual batch send. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent deciding between validation and application.

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