Fix once across apps (draft PRs)

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: dry-run default, the fact that 'One repo failing never rolls back the others; each result says what happened,' and the auth requirement ('Needs an account-level key'). For an openWorld, non-idempotent write, these are exactly the traits annotations can't convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then default mode, failure semantics, prerequisites, and return shape in a tight block. No sentence is filler, and the return schemas are spelled out in place of a missing output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so naming '{ dryRun, plans }' versus '{ batchId, opened, results }' and flagging partial-failure behavior and account-level auth makes it callable without extra digging. The only real hole is the missing contrast with the single-repo sibling.

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 60%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description only reinforces confirm's dry-run default (already in the schema) and the 10-repo cap; it adds nothing about element, changes, edits, or baseSha, so value over structured fields is marginal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus unusual scope: 'Propose the same kind of recipe edit in up to 10 repos of one organization, one draft PR per repo with a shared batch id.' The multi-repo batch scope implicitly sets it apart from the singular propose_recipe_change, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives clear operational context: dry run by default, 'confirm: true opens the drafts', and a procedural rule 'Confirm with the user before confirm: true.' Strong on how to drive it, but it never says when to pick this over the single-repo sibling or what qualifies a portfolio-sized change.

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