batch_asset_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at 'in order or return one batch plan' but does not disclose side effects, default dry_run behavior, failure handling, or whether jobs execute asynchronously.

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 compact sentence with a front-loaded verb and no filler. It is efficient, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits dry_run semantics, job ordering guarantees, error behavior, and how results or a batch plan are returned.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the jobs array structure or the dry_run parameter. The phrase 'or return one batch plan' weakly implies dry-run behavior, but the agent cannot reliably map that to dry_run=true.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('several compact asset recipes'), and clarifies the batch/planning scope. It distinguishes this from single-recipe siblings like run_asset_recipe, though it does not disambiguate from similar batch/job tools such as start_asset_job.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_asset_recipe, execute_asset_recipe, or start_asset_job. The description also does not explain when an agent should set dry_run versus run the jobs for real.

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