batch_cards

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

With destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false already declared, the description adds substantial context: it is a detached/async job whose return is acceptance not completion, it makes no image downscaling and has no UI fallback, it removes template copies, and it reopens documents for structural checks. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey and is highly actionable.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every sentence carries operational information. It is dense and slightly run-on in the middle process narration, but nothing is filler and nothing important is buried.

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?

For a complex, mutation-heavy, async tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description covers the critical unknowns: async behavior, next-step polling, template verification prerequisite, and preview inspection. It falls short only on the un-narrated layout parameters.

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 only 29%, so the description must carry more weight. It conceptually explains cards (text/image replacement), name_art PDF path import and backing construction, but says nothing about columns, gap_pt, template_artboard, expected_sublayers, or aligned_image_pairs, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Start a detached background card job from a saved normalized AI template and confirmed content'), which is far more precise than the bare name 'batch_cards'. It implicitly separates itself from validate_cards (template must be verified first) and get_batch_status (poll after), though it never states the card-generation vs. validation boundary outright.

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 states a clear precondition ('verify the template first', 'One simple card template per source document') and a clear follow-up ('poll get_batch_status and visually inspect previews'). It names sibling tools for the surrounding workflow, but does not discuss when this tool is the wrong choice or what alternatives exist for other card scenarios.

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