batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses key behavior: all operations are all-or-nothing, they count as one undo step, and look=true returns a preview, but it omits details such as permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling beyond the all-or-nothing guarantee.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the core atomic-batch behavior first and then adding the preview detail. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding or using the tool.

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 batch tool with nested calls, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the main atomicity and format concerns. It still leaves gaps around the project parameter, allowed nested tools, and what is returned when look is false.

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 compensate. It explains the required ops format with an example and clarifies that look=true returns the preview, but it does not mention the project 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 clearly states that this tool batches many edits into one call with one undo step, and provides the expected ops format. It distinguishes itself from individual edit tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling alternatives.

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 implies the tool should be used when multiple edits need to be atomic and undone together, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative tools for single edits or sequential operations.

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