record_batch_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clarifies that the tool is non-mutating (dry-run), returns preview and warnings, and notes constraints like geometry not being transmitted and network path warnings. It could add more about permissions or side effects, but overall is transparent.

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 detailed but well-structured with bullet points and clear sections for arguments and return value. It is informative without being excessively verbose, though some minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the preview cap in args and return). Still, it earns its length.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers inputs, behavior, and output structure thoroughly. It lists return fields (batch_job_id, matched_files, preview, etc.) and explains the advisory nature. An agent can fully understand how to invoke and interpret the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining all 8 parameters in detail, including examples for 'intent', 'fileset', 'operation', and describing defaults and behaviors for 'save_after', 'continue_on_error', 'out_dir', 'confidence', and 'preview_cap'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to register a batch job and return a dry-run preview without mutating data. It uses specific terms like 'Registra un BatchJob' and 'VISTA PREVIA EN SECO' and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'run_batch_job' which executes the batch.

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 when to use this tool: to get a preview for human approval before executing with run_batch_job. It says 'Revísala; luego ejecútalo con run_batch_job', providing clear guidance on workflow and alternatives.

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