Plecs Batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the client lock means calls are serialized (no parallelism gain), and per-call failures return inline errors rather than aborting the batch. It omits any mention of the stop_on_error switch or of authentication/side-effect characteristics.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then the item format, then the failure semantics. Three short sentences with a compact example; nothing is wasted, though the inline example could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be restated, and the batching contract is covered. The gap is stop_on_error: a two-parameter tool documented at 0% schema coverage leaves one parameter entirely unexplained.

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 does a good job on the `calls` array with a concrete item example showing method, params and timeout, but `stop_on_error` is never mentioned despite directly governing the inline-vs-abort behaviour the description describes.

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: run several RPC calls in a single tool call, plus the key qualifier that they remain serialized by the client lock. It implicitly contrasts with the singular plecs_rpc sibling but never names it.

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 closing clause names two concrete use cases (parameter sweeps, multi-model inspection), which implies when to reach for it. It never says when not to use it, nor explicitly redirects an agent to plecs_rpc for a single call, so routing is left to inference.

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