adobe_batch

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful execution semantics: steps run in order and stopOnError defaults to true. It does not explain return aggregation or partial-failure output, and the phrase 'any native tool' implies it can invoke side-effecting siblings, which the safety annotations do not fully surface.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the step shape, then the stopOnError default. The tool-prefix list is dense but useful for selecting valid step tools, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a batch orchestrator with no output schema, the description gives enough to initiate basic use but not enough to understand results. It does not describe the return shape, how individual step outputs are combined, or what happens on failure when stopOnError is false.

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 carry parameter meaning. It defines the shape as steps:[{tool, input}], names eligible tool prefixes, and states that stopOnError defaults to true. It still omits the effect of stopOnError=false, max step count, and that each input must match the target tool's own 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 states a specific verb and resource: run many tool calls in one ordered batch. It explicitly distinguishes this from calling siblings individually by emphasizing fewer round trips and lists the native tool families it can orchestrate.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: multiple tool calls should be batched in one go, in order, to reduce round trips. It does not state when not to use batching, whether nested batches are allowed, or any limits on batch size.

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