run_batch

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses credit consumption, which is important. However, it omits details like asynchronous nature, duration, error handling, or return value. The mention of 'generate' implies creation but lacks specifics on what happens after launch.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds a critical side effect. Every word is necessary.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., batch ID), how to track progress, or what happens after launch. The schema covers parameters, but return value and behavior are left ambiguous.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only 'multiple topics' which aligns with the topics array parameter. No additional semantic enrichment beyond 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 clearly states the action (launch) and resource (batch job) and specifies the outcome (generate publish-ready articles for multiple topics). It also notes the cost (debits workspace credits). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article or get_batch_status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or contrast with siblings like topic_cluster or faq_schema. The only hint is the credit cost, but no explicit usage context.

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