peaka_create_cache_batch

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by revealing the batch behavior ('avoids partial-failure states') and confirming that each item supports the same schedule expressions as peaka_create_cache. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but with annotations covering the basic safety profile, this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage comparison, schedule compatibility, and a necessary prerequisite note. All sentences contribute information; the only minor redundancy is repeating schedule examples already present in the schema, but this aids usability.

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 rich schema (100% parameter coverage) and annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, batch semantics, and projectId handling. There is no output schema, so mentioning return values would be helpful, but the absence is not critical for a create action with clear side effects. Sibling tools like peaka_get_cache_statuses suggest follow-up monitoring, but this is not explicitly referenced.

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%, providing baseline clarity for projectId and items. The description adds value by linking schedule parameters to peaka_create_cache and reiterating ISO-8601 examples (PT6H, P1D, etc.), reducing ambiguity. It also supplies practical guidance for projectId resolution, which the schema alone does not offer.

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 the specific action: 'Create caches for multiple tables in a single call.' It differentiates from the sibling peaka_create_cache by explicitly positioning this as the batch alternative for many tables, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of repeated peaka_create_cache calls when caching many tables' and highlights the benefit of avoiding partial-failure states. It also instructs users to call peaka_list_projects if the projectId is unknown, covering prerequisites and fallback behavior.

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