batches_from_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses that EBMS will only accept products classified as Track Count, that consumed materials are not added automatically, that no PROCESS step is included, and that nothing is created or marked as made or consumed. This is unusually transparent.

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 dense but every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature, then efficiently explains checks, BOM behavior, warehouse selection, and the required confirmation step without unnecessary filler.

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, yet the description explains what will be returned: the exact body to POST to INMFG with ebms_write. It also covers prerequisites, edge cases like warehouse fallback, and safety expectations, making the tool fully understandable for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond field names: the warehouse falls back to the last place the product was made, the company must match the worksheet, and the CSV is the raw worksheet text. This helps an agent invoke parameters correctly.

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 and resource: 'Turn approved MAKE rows of an MRP worksheet into manufacturing-batch drafts.' It also explicitly says 'read-only' and 'It creates nothing,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ebms_write and po_from_csv.

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 clearly defines when to use the tool: on approved MAKE rows, producing drafts, and instructs the agent to 'Show each draft and get a clear yes before writing it.' It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use each sibling, but the read-only draft workflow and reference to POSTing via ebms_write make the intended usage clear.

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