etabs_call_api_batch

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: calls run in order, each result is reported, and stop_on_error halts at the first failure. It does not describe what specifically gets destroyed, atomicity, or auth requirements, but it adds meaningful context about ordering and failure handling.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive batch tool, the description omits any mention of the confirm parameter or confirmation requirements, and does not clarify atomicity or what happens to successful calls when a later call fails. These are relevant gaps despite the schema providing some parameter descriptions.

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 67%, with confirm and stop_on_error documented in the schema. The description explains stop_on_error's behavior and implies ordered calls via 'in order', but it does not mention the confirm parameter at all. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema for one parameter but leaves confirm reliance entirely on structured data.

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 states a specific verb and resource: running several API calls in order in one round trip. It clearly conveys batch execution versus a single call, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling etabs_call_api tool. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand, though sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 example '(for example, define and assign many properties)' implies a use case for batching, and 'in one round trip' hints at efficiency benefits. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus multiple etabs_call_api calls or other alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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