run_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that prefix mutations persist (no rollback), that one Ctrl+Z reverts the whole batch, that execution aborts at the first error, and that nested batches are rejected. It omits any auth/permission requirements and what the call returns, keeping it short of 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then uses labeled blocks (Side effects, Example, Edge cases) with no filler. Every line earns its place; only the purpose sentence runs slightly long.

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 executor with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, error semantics, and nesting limits well. The remaining gap is not enumerating which mutation types are permitted inside 'allowed mutations', which an agent would need to construct a valid call.

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 0% for the single 'commands' parameter, which the schema only types as an array of open objects. The embedded example supplies the {type, params} command shape, which genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it never enumerates the accepted command types, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb (run) and resource (a batch of allowed mutations) plus the scoping concept of one Live undo step. The batch/sequential framing clearly separates it from single-mutation siblings like set_tempo or set_parameter_value. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops just short of 5.

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 example demonstrates invocation and 'aborts at the first error' implies batching intent, but the description never says when to prefer this over firing the individual mutation tools, nor which mutations count as 'allowed'. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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