batch_annotate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that annotations follow the annotate() format and includes an example, but it does not disclose failure behavior, ordering, atomicity, or what happens if some annotations are invalid.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives the required array structure and a concrete example. The example is moderately long but earns its place by showing realistic annotation objects; no sentences are wasted.

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 tool has only two parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and an output schema is present. The description adds a practical example and references the annotate() format. Additional guidance about batching semantics would be nice but is not essential for basic invocation.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a multi-annotation example and a cross-reference to the annotate() format, which helps an agent understand how to construct valid entries beyond the schema text.

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 identifies the operation: applying multiple annotations in one call. This distinguishes it from the many single-annotation sibling tools like add_box, add_text, and the basic annotate tool.

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 phrase 'in a single call' and the instruction to pass an array of annotation specs implicitly tell the agent to use this when batching multiple annotations. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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