console_batch

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing ordering and, importantly, that execution stops at the first failure. It does not explain authentication or exact failure semantics, but the key behavioral trait is present.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and capped with the failure behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive batch tool with an untyped nested actions array and 0% schema documentation, the description leaves a critical gap: an agent still cannot determine how to shape individual action objects or why vm_name is required.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It lists possible action types for the 'actions' array, which adds some value, but it never describes the object structure needed to encode each action and never mentions the required 'vm_name' parameter at all.

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: run up to 32 ordered actions of enumerated types on a console. It clearly distinguishes itself as a batch executor from the single-action siblings such as console_type_text or console_click, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'up to 32 ordered' and 'stops at the first failure' implies this is for multi-step sequences rather than single actions, but it never says when to prefer this over the individual console_* tools or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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