batch_from_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that drafts are generated (a mutating action) but does not disclose side effects, whether dry_run exists or defaults to true, permission requirements, output details, or reversibility. The description is thin on behavioral transparency beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences front-load the purpose and job structure. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 complexity (3 params, generation of multiple drafts, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits key context such as dry_run behavior, output format, and when to use batch versus single-draft tools. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged since the description doesn't reference it, and the tool's success criteria remain 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by specifying that each job contains 'name, replacements, text_replacements', which clarifies the jobs array, and 'plaintext template' clarifies template_draft. However, it leaves dry_run unexplained and doesn't define the replacement fields fully, so compensation is partial.

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 a specific action ('batch generate drafts') on a specific resource ('drafts') based on a 'plaintext template'. It also explains the structure of each job (name, replacements, text_replacements), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_draft (single) or build_from_reference (reference-based).

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 implies usage for batch generation from a template via the word 'batch', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with siblings are provided; the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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