execute_inbox_file_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the destructive step (staging file deleted on success, kept on duplicate), the duplicate-parking semantics, plan lifecycle effects, and partial-failure reporting via `failed`. What it omits is permissions/auth requirements and whether a partially failed batch leaves the plan in a recoverable state.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action, then the per-item behavior, then the exception path, then the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information, and no line restates the name or pads with filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the exact return object including the `duplicates` and `remaining` fields. Combined with the approval prerequisite and the duplicate-resolution path, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds useful context by revealing that batch size comes from configuration (budget_per_run.files), which the empty schema would not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Execute the next batch of file-category items from the approved plan') and scopes it to file items, which implicitly separates it from the content-oriented siblings get_inbox_content_batch and get_inbox_plan. An agent can identify what it does without opening a schema (there are no parameters).

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?

It states a hard prerequisite ('Plan must be approved before calling') and names the follow-up tool and exact status values needed to resolve duplicates, which is strong routing guidance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a content batch instead, so the file-vs-content exclusion is only implied.

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