batch_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses execution stops at first error, rollback semantics, sequential processing, requirement to use underlying plugin command names, path notation relative to the edited scene root, and the restriction against nested batch_execute calls. This goes beyond what any annotation schema would typically provide.

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 longer than average but each sentence adds necessary detail about format, behavior, and use cases. It is well-structured with a clear opening, a formatted example, and topic-specific sentences. While it could be slightly tightened, it remains efficient and informative without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete: it covers input item structure, valid command names, execution ordering, failure handling, rollback semantics, path conventions, and a concrete example. No critical gaps are apparent for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema covers all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds substantial meaning: it specifies the precise structure of each commands array item (`{"command": "<plugin_command>", "params": {...}}`), enumerates example command names, explains the rollback effect of the `undo` parameter, and clarifies path semantics relative to the scene root. This is far beyond the schema's minimal parameter descriptions.

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 a list of editor sub-commands in order, stopping on first error,' which is a specific verb+resource with an explicit behavioral constraint. It distinguishes itself from sibling single-operation tools by focusing on batch composition and sequencing.

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 says 'Use this to compose multi-step edits (create node + set property + attach script) into a single tool call,' providing a clear use case. It also notes that `batch_execute` itself cannot be a sub-command and explains the undo/rollback behavior, which guides correct usage, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative single-command tools.

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