Batch content orchestration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that include_relations provides shared-rule analysis, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value, with no wasted words. The second sentence efficiently explains the optional parameter.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the batch scope and optional feature. It doesn't mention constraints like maxItems=40 (visible in schema) or explicitly state the return value, but is otherwise complete for an idempotent, read-only tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'items' array contains 'full v7 orchestrate params' and that include_relations adds cross-heading analysis. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the exact shape of items is partially inferred from the schema itself.

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 it orchestrates rules for multiple headings in one call, distinguishing it from single-headline tools. The verb 'orchestrate' and resource 'rules for multiple headings' are specific and actionable.

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 implies use for batch operations on whole outlines or homepages and mentions the include_relations feature for structure variety checks. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gkb_smart_orchestrate or state when not to use it.

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