add_multiple_steps

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the batch behavior, single undo entry, and placement rules (end of array by default, parentPath for nested bodies). It does not mention failure modes or validation, but the core behavior is well described.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear structure, explains the difference from add_step, and provides a practical example without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description is largely self-contained and provides enough context to use the tool, especially with the reference to add_step for placement rules. However, it does not specify all parameter meanings or edge cases, and there is no output schema, but the essential usage context is covered.

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 only 20% (only 'project' has a description). The tool description does not explain flowId, parentPath, or 'at' parameters, relying on reference to add_step. While the 'steps' parameter is thoroughly described in the schema, the missing explanations for other key parameters limit clarity.

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: adding a batch of steps to a flow in a single operation, distinguishing it from add_step. The verb 'Add' and resource 'steps to a flow' are explicit, and the contrast with add_step makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool over add_step ('avoids an add_step-per-step round trip when recording several steps at once') and provides a concrete example (live exploration session). This gives clear guidance on the appropriate context.

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