Batch Commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that destructive commands are excluded, but it does not explain batch execution behavior (e.g., sequential vs parallel, error handling, atomicity, rate limits, or size limits). This is a significant gap for a batching tool.

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 two sentences: front-loaded with purpose, then format, then restriction. It is concise and well-organized with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has one parameter (array of objects) and no output schema. The description does not mention return values, error behavior, execution order, or any batching limitations. For a complex tool, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that each command is an object with 'type' and 'params' fields, and lists example destructive commands. However, it does not specify that 'type' must be a valid command name or describe the constraints on 'params' objects. It adds basic structure but lacks completeness.

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: 'Execute multiple commands in a single round-trip.' It also provides the expected format for each command. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other batch tools like execute_processing_batch, though it does list destructive commands that are excluded.

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 gives explicit guidance on when not to use the tool: 'Destructive commands ... are not allowed in batch — use them individually.' This clearly separates it from individual command tools. It does not provide full alternatives but the rule is clear.

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