propose_terms_batch

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

Discloses that all proposals are sent in one HTTP request to avoid rate limits. However, lacks details on atomicity, partial success, error handling, or authorization requirements. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. The 'Args' block is slightly verbose but still efficient. No wasted sentences.

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?

Covers core purpose and parameters, but omits output description and error handling. Given the output schema exists, the description could be considered adequate, but additional context on failure modes would enhance completeness.

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%, but the description compensates by detailing the proposal object's fields and their constraints (e.g., term length 3-50). Additional clarity on optionality and defaults would further improve.

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?

Description clearly states 'Submit multiple term proposals in a single batch request' and explicitly contrasts with 'propose_term' sibling, making the tool's purpose and differentiation unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises using this instead of propose_term for multiple proposals to avoid rate limits. Could be more explicit about when not to use (e.g., single proposal), but the guidance is strong.

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