type_apply_batch

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral context. It states the return is 'aggregate status' but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or atomicity. The 'stop_on_error' parameter is not mentioned.

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 a single concise sentence. It is efficient and front-loaded with the action and resource, but could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested batch, multiple edit fields, output schema indicated), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the batch workflow, edit format, or return structure, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema. With 50% schema coverage, the nested 'batch' structure is complex and deserves explanation (e.g., format of edits). Schema descriptions are present but not elaborated.

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 action ('apply') and resource ('type edits'), and mentions the return value ('aggregate status'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_type', which also applies type edits but individually.

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 provided on when to use this batch tool versus alternative tools (e.g., set_type for single edits). The description lacks context for selection.

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