goldhold_batch

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states that operations are sent in one request. It does not cover execution order, atomicity, partial failure behavior, side effects, or response format, all of which are critical for a batching tool.

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 compact and front-loads the core concept of batching. Both sentences are purposeful, but the structure is minimal and leaves out useful context such as execution semantics or limits, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no annotations, and the tool has moderate complexity as a batch processor. The description does not explain what the response looks like, whether operations run sequentially, whether a failed operation aborts the batch, or any maximum batch size, so it is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description repeats the method-and-params structure already present in the schema without adding new detail about valid methods, parameter formats, or per-operation constraints, so it adds no real semantic value beyond the schema.

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 that this tool bundles multiple operations into a single request, which clearly identifies it as a batch wrapper rather than a specific action tool. It names the structure of each operation (method and params), though it does not enumerate which operations or contrast itself with the sibling single-operation 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?

The phrase 'multiple operations in one request' implies the tool is for combining several calls, which is a reasonable usage signal. However, it does not explicitly say when to use batch versus the individual goldhold_search, goldhold_store, goldhold_send, goldhold_inbox, or goldhold_status tools, nor does it mention exclusions.

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