batch_actions

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. It explicitly discloses that actions run sequentially, pumpAndSettle occurs between actions, and it stops on first error. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention error semantics (what happens to the stop, partial success exposure), but the core execution traits are well disclosed.

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 a single functional paragraph of about 40 words that front-loads the core purpose and then lists supported tools. Every sentence earns its place. The tool list is necessary context. Slightly more structure (bulleted execution semantics) could help, but it is appropriately concise.

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 single parameter with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract including sequential execution, pumpAndSettle delay, stop-on-error semantics, and the supported tool whitelist. It could elaborate on how errors are surfaced or whether partial results are observable, but for a batching facade this is reasonably complete.

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%, and there is only 1 parameter (actions). The description lists the allowed tool names but does not explain how to structure each action object or what 'args' should contain. With only one array parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the description adds the tool list but doesn't need to add much more.

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 executes multiple actions in a single call, lists the supported sub-tools, and conveys the sequential execution model. It distinguishes from siblings by being the batching/composition primitive. However, its name 'batch_actions' already implies the purpose, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 explains when to use it (multiple actions in one call), the execution semantics (sequential, pumpAndSettle between, stops on first error), and lists the supported sub-tools, which tells the agent which actions can be batched. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the execution details provide solid usage context.

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