batch_modify

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses destructive behavior when review:false, mentions backup creation, explains transactional rollback behavior, and details both review and auto-write return shapes.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but well-organized: tool definition, usage examples, transaction modes, exclusions, warnings, and return shapes. Every sentence adds necessary context without repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch mode, two transaction modes, destructive behavior, varied return shapes), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, how to use, risk details, and expected outputs. No output schema exists, but return shapes are described thoroughly.

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?

The input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that instructions are natural-language and the same for all files, and elaborates on transaction modes beyond the schema enum descriptions. However, it doesn't add syntax details for files or options beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb 'Apply' and resource 'each file in files' with clear examples of sweeping edits. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'refactor' and 'modify_file' by explicitly stating what it does not do.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (sweeping consistent edits) and when-not-to-use (cross-file references, single file with custom instructions), naming alternative tools 'refactor' and 'modify_file'. It also explains transaction mode choices.

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