input_batch

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

Beyond the generic annotations, the description discloses validation behavior, batched execution, and a lock lifecycle ('VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished'). It does not explain failure semantics or partial execution, but the added lock context is meaningful value.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the core purpose and critical lock requirement with no filler or redundancy. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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?

The tool is complex (many action types, three parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose and lock handling. However, it omits details such as validation failure behavior, whether the sequence is atomic, and what the tool returns or how errors are reported, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 description provides no direct explanation of the top-level parameters (actions, stop_on_error, screenshot_after). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only offers a general list of action categories. This is insufficient for the tool's parameter complexity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and names the exact resource categories (mouse, keyboard, delay, clipboard, focus) while noting the batch behavior ('sequence in one guest round trip'). This clearly distinguishes it from the individual sibling input tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (for executing a multi-action sequence in one round trip) and gives important workflow context: the VM remains locked and vm_unlock must be called when finished. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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