batch_execute

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

The description substantially exceeds the annotations. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description discloses critical behavioral traits: ordered execution, halt on first failure, rollback of scene edits only (not file/resource writes), and the meaning of 'ok' per step. It also warns about verifying effects, which is a key non-obvious behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then details failure/rollback behavior, then gives a concrete use case, and finally adds a crucial verification warning. Every sentence serves a distinct function with no fluff or repetition of obvious schema details.

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 having no output schema, the description explains that 'ok per step' only means handler completion and not necessarily success, and instructs to verify with read-back steps. It covers failure semantics, rollback limits, and usage context. For a batch execution tool with this complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to use it safely and effectively.

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 input schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema, particularly for the 'rollback' parameter: it clarifies that rollback undoes scene edits but not file/resource writes, and it explains the format of 'steps' with an actual example. This goes beyond the schema's default-value notes, earning a 4.

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, specific verb and resource: "Run several tool calls in one request, in order." It immediately distinguishes from siblings (which are individual operations) by framing this as a meta-tool for batching. The purpose is unmistakable and non-tautological.

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 explicitly states a concrete use case: "Use to collapse multi-step authoring (create node → set props → attach script) into one atomic call." It also advises verifications with read-back steps, implying when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for a single simple call) or name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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