cavalry_batch

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses fail-fast (non-atomic) execution and warns about ID substitution, which are critical behavioral traits. It doesn't detail error handling or rollback, but the 'fail-fast' implies no rollback.

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?

Two sentences front-load the key purpose and critical behavioral constraints (fail-fast, no auto-substitution). Every word is purposeful; no wasted text.

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 single-parameter tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides essential behavioral context. It doesn't need to explain return values per guidelines. A minor gap is lack of mention of maximum batch size or performance implications.

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%, so the schema fully defines the 'ops' parameter structure. The description adds value by explaining how IDs are not auto-substituted, but this is about behavior, not parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 runs a sequence of operations in one round-trip, with fail-fast (non-atomic) behavior, and distinctively warns about layer ID substitution. This differentiates it from sibling tools that perform single operations.

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 explicitly tells when to use (batching multiple operations) and when not (if need atomicity or auto-substitution), and suggests splitting into multiple batches if needed. No alternative tool is named, but the context is sufficient.

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