Batch Migrate Base Plan Prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose one useful behavioral trait: the operation is disabled in read-only mode, signaling it is a write. However, it does not explain what 'migrate' does to existing prices, whether the operation is reversible, or how partial batch failures behave.

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 with zero wasted words. The primary purpose verb phrase is front-loaded, and the read-only restriction earns its place as a critical operational caveat in the second sentence.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this is a batch mutation tool with no annotations, no effect semantics for 'migrate,' and an opaque request item type. The description does not explain how to construct valid request bodies, what consequences the migration has, or how it relates to the singular migrate_base_plan_prices sibling. An agent would need external knowledge to invoke this safely.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Notably, the 'requests' items are opaque (additionalProperties: true) and the description only refers to 'MigrateBasePlanPricesRequest bodies' without clarifying their contents, but it does not need to compensate heavily given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Migrate'), resource ('prices for multiple base plans'), and batch scope ('in a single operation'). This is clear and implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling migrate_base_plan_prices, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (migrate_base_plan_prices, convert_region_prices, batch_update_base_plan_states). 'Disabled in read-only mode' is a constraint, not a usage rule. An agent has no basis for choosing batch over single migration.

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