Batch

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the minimal readOnlyHint annotation: atomic reverts prior ops via Unity Undo, execute_code filesystem side-effects are not reverted, and on_error behavior is defined. It does not cover return format or permissions, but the core side-effect behavior is well addressed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and usage. It packs essential details (command format, error handling, timeout, atomic behavior) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description provides substantial context: command format, error behavior, timeout, atomicity, and side-effect caveats. It does not describe the return value format, which is a minor gap, but overall it is comprehensive enough for agent use.

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 input schema already covers all five parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a generic command syntax ('cmd key=value') but largely duplicates the schema's examples and does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Execute multiple commands in one call' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from individual tool calls by noting 'Use for 2+ ops — reads AND writes' and 'PREFER over individual tool calls'.

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 the tool ('Use for 2+ ops') and provides a clear preference over alternatives ('PREFER over individual tool calls'). It also explains key options like on_error and timeout, guiding selection and configuration.

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