batch_execute

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

The description discloses key behaviors: execution order, stop_on_error default true, rollback of scene edits via undo history, and that file/resource writes are not rolled back. This adds value beyond the annotations (which are minimal).

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: a single sentence stating the main purpose followed by two sentences clarifying behavior and one usage example. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description adequately covers behavior, parameters, and usage. It does not explain return values, but that is not essential for a batch execution tool.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context by explaining the format of steps (e.g., 'steps = [{tool, args}]') and default behaviors, but does not substantially extend the schema's meaning.

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 runs several tool calls in order, using a specific verb 'run' and resource 'tool calls'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are individual calls like create_node or set_property, as this batches them.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'collapse multi-step authoring (create node → set props → attach script) into one atomic call.' It also notes caveats like rollback not applying to file/resource writes. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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