enrich_batch

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description discloses several behavioral aspects: it processes products one by one, returns a consolidated report with enriched items/failures/warnings, and produces storefront-ready output. This implies a non-destructive, orchestration-style operation and indicates graceful error handling. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or external service calls, which would be needed for full transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Orquestrador de lote') and follows with the specific action and outcome. It contains no filler or redundant information, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

The description covers the high-level purpose and output but lacks essential context: it does not explain what the options do, how failures/warnings are structured, potential constraints, or the relationship to sibling tools like enrich_product. Given the nested schema and absence of an output schema, the description leaves clear gaps for a complex batch 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?

The description provides no meaning for the 'products' array structure (ean, brand, title, etc.) or the 'options' object (locale, with_ai, with_images). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it only refers to 'raw products' generically. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as a batch orchestrator that applies the enrichment pipeline to a list of raw products and returns a consolidated report with enriched products, failures, and warnings. The verb 'aplica' and resource 'pipeline de enriquecimento' specify the action and object, and the mention of 'lote' distinguishes it from single-enrichment tools like enrich_product.

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 clearly conveys the intended usage: processing a batch of raw products for storefront import, with output ready for import. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as using enrich_product for single products. This makes the context clear but not fully explicit, meriting a 4 rather than 5.

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