Batch operations

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description goes further by disclosing transaction semantics: atomic=true is default, the batch stops at the first error and undoes prior work, and it operates on editor-side tools. It does not explain result reporting or how non-atomic partial failures are surfaced, which is the main remaining gap.

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 purpose and transaction behavior in two tight sentences, then separates the action's parameter shape into a compact list. No redundant filler relative to the information conveyed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the transaction rollback behavior, default atomicity, and method addressing needed to invoke it correctly. It omits what a caller receives on success/partial failure, which matters for a batch executor, keeping it just below fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the 'method' field's required '<tool>.<action>' format and the list of valid tool namespaces, plus restating the atomic default. This is genuine added value over the bare string/boolean definitions.

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 many editor operations in one round trip as a single transaction') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tools it composes by naming the '<tool>.<action>' method scheme. An agent can tell this apart from exec/run/node without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('build a whole level or UI in one go') and implicitly frames the alternative — the individual sibling tools whose methods it references. It does not explicitly state when NOT to batch (e.g. single operations), so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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