try_many

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses parallel execution, live concurrent Monitor display, separate branch trees, and that every session's result is returned. It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or cleanup, but the branch-tree model implies isolation.

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?

Three dense sentences with no fluff: purpose and usage are front-loaded, parameter shape comes second, and return/monitor behavior closes it out. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the parallel execution model, the task object shape, the monitor URL, and the return behavior; the presence of an output schema also covers detailed return structure. It relies on the sibling definition of try_all for full field semantics and omits explicit side-effect or prerequisite warnings, so it is not flawless.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's breakdown of `tasks` as a list of `{task, approaches, test_cmd?, benchmark_cmd?}` objects is essential and useful. `repo_path` is only indirectly described via 'same repo', which is adequate given the parameter name but less explicit.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Run several DIFFERENT tasks on the same repo AT ONCE—each becomes its own parallel Superpose session.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like try_all, which is referenced as the source of the task-field format rather than as the same behavior.

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 the tool: 'Use this when you have multiple independent changes queued for one codebase and want them worked in parallel from a single call.' It does not explicitly list counter-indications or name alternative tools, 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.