batch

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: atomicity with rollback, rejection of destructive ops, and the return format ({ ok, results }). This adds significant context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the most important information (atomicity and rollback). Every sentence adds value without 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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, how to use it, what inputs are expected, and what outputs are returned. It is complete given the complexity and available structured fields.

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?

While the schema documents the ops parameter, the description adds critical meaning by explaining the inner structure ({ tool, params }), listing example invertible tools, and noting that destructive ops are rejected. This goes beyond schema documentation.

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 tool's function: applying multiple invertible write ops atomically. It specifies the structure of the operations (ordered list of { tool, params }) and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly rejecting destructive ops.

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 description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool by listing example invertible write tools (set_fills, rename_node, etc.) and stating that destructive ops are rejected. It implies batch is for atomic execution of multiple writes, but could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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