Batch Create Entities

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by saying 'Create'. However, the description does not disclose important batch behaviors such as atomicity (all-or-nothing), what happens if one entity fails, or any limits on the number of entities. The only extra trait mentioned is performance, which is not a safety or error behavior. The burden falls on the description, and it falls short.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then a clarifying example, then comparative usage guidance. Every sentence contributes essential information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, clear schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, entity format, and relationship to cad_batch. The existence of an output schema alleviates the need to explain return values. However, missing error-handling details slightly reduce completeness for a batch operation.

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 schema already covers the entities parameter with 100% description coverage, including the requirement for a 'type' key. The description adds a concrete example showing the exact format for line and circle entities, which helps the agent construct valid input. This added example is valuable beyond the raw 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 tool's function: 'Create multiple entities in a single call for better performance.' It specifically names the resource (entities) and action (batch create), and distinguishes from cad_batch by contrasting density and order requirements. This goes beyond a vague verb.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Denser than cad_batch for many entities of the same kind' and 'Use cad_batch when the calls differ, must be ordered, or must feed each other.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over the primary alternative, and also implies it should be preferred over single-entity create tools for batching.

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