create_resources

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

Annotations cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds a trait the annotations do not encode: the request is 'atomic', implying all-or-nothing semantics. It does not state the failure/rollback behavior explicitly or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The batch scope and atomicity are front-loaded, and the key/parent_key workflow follows as a practical second sentence.

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?

For a batch mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scale limit, atomicity, ordering, and the parent/child nesting pattern. It omits what a caller gets back (e.g., whether created IDs are returned) and what happens to the batch if one item fails validation, both of which matter for a 100-item call.

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 description coverage is 100% – key, parent_key, parent, content and the rest are all documented in the schema itself. The sentence 'Give items a `key` and nest later items under them with `parent_key`' describes the hierarchy-building pattern, adding modest value, but largely restates what the per-field schema text already says. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Create up to 100 resources in one atomic request.' The batch scope and atomicity distinguish it from the singular create_resource sibling without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 gives concrete usage contexts ('scaffolding a region, a cast of NPCs or a whole hierarchy'), which tells the agent when bulk creation is appropriate. It never explicitly names the alternative (create_resource for single items) or states exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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