batch_edit

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: validates all steps first, rejects conflicts, executes sequentially, and emits tracked changes, going beyond annotation-only information.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding essential information without redundancy. Purpose, behavior, and outcome are clearly communicated with no waste.

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?

Covers key aspects: batch operation, validation, conflict handling, and output (tracked changes). However, lacks details on error handling for individual step failures or partial execution, leaving some gaps for complex scenarios.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that steps can be inline or via plan_file_path, and that each step needs step_id, operation, and operation-specific fields, compensating for the schema's empty items properties.

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 is for applying multiple edit steps (replace_text, insert_paragraph) to a document in one call, distinguishing it from individual sibling tools like replace_text and insert_paragraph.

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 identifies itself as a 'single-agent front door' for batch edits, implying usage for multiple steps. It mentions validation and conflict rejection but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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