batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: per-item error collection, independent call execution, and auto-injection of the database parameter. While it does not explicitly state that operations execute sequentially (covered in the schema) or describe the exact return structure (output schema exists), the description adequately discloses the most critical behavioral traits for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 exceptionally concise, using three short paragraphs. The main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and a note on database handling. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded and well-organized, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and when to use it.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, array of operations, output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, and database injection. It does not explicitly mention the maximum of 50 operations or sequential execution, but these are documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially since the schema provides the remaining details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the auto-injection behavior of `database` and how to override it for cross-database operations, which is not obvious from the schema alone. It also clarifies the 'independent' nature of operations, which complements the operations array schema. The description does not rehash the `stop_on_error` parameter, which is already described in 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run 2+ independent tool calls in a single request with per-item error collection.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('tool calls'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling `execute` by mentioning it is preferred for independent calls. Concrete examples (decompile, rename, set comments, fetch xrefs) further clarify the intended use.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Preferred over `execute` for independent calls' and 'Use `execute` only when chaining one tool's output into another.' It also instructs on parameter handling ('`database` is auto-injected into each operation — omit from params') and cross-database overrides, leaving no ambiguity about selection or invocation context.

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