batch_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it excels. It discloses atomic failure ('Throws — writing nothing at all'), sequential id allocation ('Ids are allocated sequentially from the current max'), the return shape (`{ type, count, created, warnings? }`), and warning behavior ('enemy battlerName misses are warnings, never blocked'). These are critical behavioral nuances beyond simple schema info.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains record semantics and id behavior, the third gives usage guidance, and the fourth covers return/error behavior. No filler or 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?

This is a complex batch write tool with no output schema. The description covers return format, error conditions, atomicity, id allocation, and warning semantics. It also references sibling tools for record shape clarification. This is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing a strong baseline. The description adds meaningful semantics: each entry in `records` follows the matching create_* tool's field shape, only `name` is required for most, and omitted fields use defaults. It also explains how the `type` parameter relates to record shape. This goes beyond schema, though the schema already does much of the work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create many database records of one type in a single call and a single file write.' It explicitly identifies itself as the batch sibling of the single-record create_* tools, distinguishing it from those alternatives and clearly conveying its purpose.

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: 'Use this instead of N sequential create_* calls when authoring a cast, a loot table, or a skill list.' This also indicates the alternative approach (sequential calls) and the scenarios where batching is preferable.

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