batch_edit

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: validates all steps first, rejects conflicts, then executes sequentially. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the safe, atomic-like execution order.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of batching edits with validation, the description covers essential aspects. However, it does not describe return values or error handling beyond rejection of conflicts, which would be helpful. Still, it is largely 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%, and the description adds meaning by explaining that steps are a JSON array with edit step structure, and that plan_file_path is mutually exclusive with steps. This provides context beyond the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Single-agent front door for applying multiple edit steps (replace_text, insert_paragraph) to a document in one call.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like replace_text and insert_paragraph by batching them.

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?

The description explains the validation-before-application process and the two input methods (inline steps, plan_file_path), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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