Run several tools in one request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses execution order, per-step failure reporting, and stop_on_error semantics. It also explains result referencing via $N.path. It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or transactional behavior, but for a meta-tool it adds substantial useful context beyond the schema.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct value: execution model, step shape and reference syntax, and failure behavior. 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?

For a two-parameter meta-tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: how to build steps, how to reference earlier results, and how errors are handled. Return values need not be explained because no output schema exists. Nothing critical is missing.

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 must compensate. It defines the steps structure as {tool, arguments}, explains the reference syntax with $N.path, clarifies N indexing including -1/'last', and gives an example. It also explains stop_on_error. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 resource: execute a list of tool calls in order inside one round trip. It clearly distinguishes this batch/orchestration tool from ordinary single-action siblings. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for use: batching multiple tool calls into a single round trip. It implies when this is preferable but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, such as direct calls or bb_execute_js. A 4 is appropriate: clear context, no exclusions.

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