Batch generate

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: credit/quota consumption per job, graceful stop at plan/quota/rate limits, offset-based resume semantics, and asynchronous job-id returns. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before firing a 10-item batch.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core batching action, then limits, then failure behavior, then next-step pointers. No filler; every sentence carries load.

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 12-parameter async batch tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (job ids), limits, and symptom handling. It leans on the 92%-covered schema for parameter details, which is reasonable, though it could say a bit more about mode-specific requirements (e.g. prompt/folder coupling).

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 92%, so the schema already documents mode, offset, folder, prompts_file, etc. The description restates mode semantics and the resume role of offset but adds little syntactic or format detail not present in the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (queue jobs) and resource (images in a folder / lines of a prompts file), and enumerates the three operating modes. It is clearly distinguishable from the single-shot siblings adsoptimiser_generate_image and adsoptimiser_generate_video.

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?

Provides concrete operating context: batch-of-10 cap, per-job plan allowance cost, and where to check results (adsoptimiser_get_job / adsoptimiser_list_jobs). It never explicitly says when to prefer this over single generate_image/generate_video, 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.