Batch Commands

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the device argument is applied to every step and all steps must target the same device. The schema further discloses that all steps are validated before the first device side effect, contributing useful execution 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 exactly two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides usage guidance, then the device constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description combined with the schema covers the key operational details: execution order, device scoping, validation-before-effects, and stop/list options. The only minor gap is no explicit note about what the response looks like, but without an output schema this is acceptable.

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%, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine param semantics not present in the schema by explaining that the device parameter is propagated to every step and that all steps must target that same device, which is a non-obvious constraint an agent needs to know.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run multiple tools in sequence in a single call', followed by concrete examples (click, type, click, type). It clearly distinguishes this orchestration tool from the individual mobile_* action siblings by framing it as a batch/composition mechanism rather than a single action.

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 states when to use it: 'Use this to fill forms or perform multi-step flows without round-trips.' It gives clear positive use cases and implies the alternative (calling each tool individually via separate calls), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for a single isolated action.

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