execute_script_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits or quotas, what happens on partial failures, or what the typical response looks like. For a batch execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is communicated immediately without unnecessary elaboration.

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 execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens during execution (synchronous/asynchronous), what the return values might be, error handling for partial failures, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would need to guess about many important operational aspects.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'calls' well-documented in the schema as 'Array of function calls' with detailed nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Execute multiple Apps Script functions') and resource ('in batch'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'execute_script_function' - both involve executing Apps Script functions, with the key difference being batch vs single execution.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when batch execution is preferable to single function execution (vs 'execute_script_function'), nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases for batch processing.

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