Batch operations

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'fail-forward, per-operation warnings; not transactional' and 'Names created earlier can be referenced by later connect/setParam operations.' These are not derivable from the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and are essential for the agent to predict partial failure behavior and cross-referencing semantics.

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 the core purpose, followed immediately by the key behavioral caveat and a sibling distinction. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool with a complex nested schema and multiple operation types, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, the non-transactional behavior, name referencing, and relationship to a similar tool. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable. The description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including the operations array's ordering and fail-forward behavior. The description reinforces these points but adds no new parameter-level details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness; the description does not need to compensate.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Run an ordered list of create / connect / setParam operations in one call.' It clearly identifies the resource (network builder) and the scope of operations. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool ('distinct from set_parameters_batch'), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly names an alternative tool (set_parameters_batch) and explains the difference, which helps with selection. It implies use for multi-step network construction via 'Exposes the network builder as a general primitive,' but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single operations). This is clear context but lacks formal exclusions.

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