schedule_batch

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains that no money moves now but N future dispatches are committed and executed by the user's poller with their key, that items land in the due queue as unsigned payloads, and that dispatch_due_deliveries fires them. This is exactly the consequence-level detail a destructive, non-idempotent batch tool needs.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then parameters, then the behavioral warning — a sensible order. Three dense paragraphs with no filler sentences, though the delivery-field enumeration is lengthy and could be trimmed marginally.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and the key side effect for a tool with no output schema. Minor gaps remain: no guidance on batch size limits or partial-failure behavior, and the confirmation requirement is stated but without a defined summary format beyond count/addresses/window/fees.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names required per-item fields (external_delivery_id, dropoff_address, dropoff_phone_number, order_value in cents), marks tip and dropoff_instructions optional, explains pickup_address as a fallback for items without their own, and defines dispatch_at/stagger_minutes with a worked example.

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 and resource — scheduling an entire event's deliveries in one call — with concrete instances (restaurant launch, catering run, office-lunch drops). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the singular schedule_delivery despite no explicit sibling naming.

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?

Clear context for when to use it (multi-item event runs) plus a mandatory workflow: summarize the full plan and get explicit user confirmation before scheduling. It does not explicitly contrast with schedule_delivery or batch_dispatch, so the boundary between the batch siblings is left implicit.

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