batches_from_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior ('It creates nothing'), that drafts mark nothing made or consumed, that PROCESS is never carried and must be finished by a person in EBMS, and that EBMS does NOT auto-add consumed materials via the API. It also discloses the Track Count acceptance check and the warehouse fallback rule.

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-loaded with a precise statement of what it does, and every clause is substantive (the Track Count check, the BOM quantity caveat, the draft-is-not-a-write warning). It is a dense single paragraph with a couple of long parentheticals that would read better as a short list, but little is wasted.

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, and the description explains what comes back (the exact POST body per draft) and how to use it (show each draft, get a clear yes). It does not describe the shape of the returned draft list beyond that, a minor gap for a tool with this much behavior to convey.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the warehouse defaulting rule ('the one given, else where the product was last made') and the company-match requirement, both of which already appear in the schema, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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: turn approved MAKE rows of an MRP worksheet into manufacturing-batch drafts, read-only. That is clearly distinct from mrp_plan (which produces the worksheet) and ebms_write (which performs the POST), so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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 gives the precondition (rows approved in the mrp_plan worksheet), names the follow-on tool ('returns the exact body to POST to INMFG with ebms_write'), and rules out human-only steps. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or contrast against import_from_csv/po_from_csv, so it falls just 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.