batch

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: execution order is preserved, stop_on_error aborts on first failure by default, and wait_seconds can return a pending job_id (async behavior). It stops short of stating mutation/destructive impact, auth needs, or partial-failure semantics.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, followed by usage and then a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers ordering, error handling, and async job behavior. It is nearly complete for a batching tool but leaves out safety/permission context that annotations would otherwise supply.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains all three parameters: the `calls` array structure and its per-entry meaning via the `call` tool, plus the default behavior of stop_on_error and wait_seconds. This is strong compensation, though the item shape is delegated by reference rather than fully specified.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: run many API calls in order in one round trip. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the single-call sibling `call` by emphasizing batching and ordering, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

Gives clear usage context (build or query a model efficiently, e.g. adding dozens of objects) and ties `calls` semantics back to the `call` tool. It does not name an explicit when-not or spell out the alternative for single calls, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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