batch_generate_screens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that generation happens in a single operation and maintains design consistency, but it does not mention side effects such as whether screens are newly created or overwrite existing ones, whether partial failures can occur, or what permissions are required.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key differentiator of batch generation.

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, no annotations, and the tool involves nested objects and side effects. The description does not explain what the operation returns, whether the batch is atomic, or how existing screens are affected. More behavioral context is needed for an agent to invoke this safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the notion of 'consistent design language,' which relates to sharedDesignContext but does not explicitly map to it. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generates multiple related screens in a single operation.' This clearly distinguishes it from single-screen generation tools like generate_screen_from_text, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 'multiple related screens' implies when this tool should be used, and 'consistent design language' hints at a use case around design coherence. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over generate_screen_from_text, edit_screens, or generate_variants.

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