Batch Commands

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows steps can mutate device state. The description adds the device-inheritance rule, which is useful, but says nothing about partial-failure state, whether nested batch calls are permitted, or what the aggregate result looks like. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is an adequate but not rich disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the usage example and the device-inheritance caveat. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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 orchestrator with nested step objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage and device scoping well. It leaves the return shape and partial-failure semantics implicit, though stopOnError and listElementsAtEnd are documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a rule the schema does not state: the device argument applies to every step unless a step supplies its own. That inheritance behavior is genuinely useful for constructing a steps array correctly.

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 multiple tools in sequence in one call — and immediately clarifies its scope with a concrete example (click, type, click, type). No sibling tool does batching, so the agent can distinguish it at a glance.

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 gives a clear use context ('fill forms or perform multi-step flows without round-trips'), which tells the agent when this tool beats issuing individual calls. It stops short of explicit exclusions or guidance on when a single-step call is preferable, so it falls short of a 5.

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