Approve a company batch once to run guarded stages sequentially. Stop returns partial progress; resume same hash after inspecting the cause.
Approve the complete ordered company batch once and execute its stages sequentially through guarded plans. A stop returns explicit partial progress. Resume the same hash after inspecting the cause.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batchId | Yes | ||
| expectedHash | Yes | ||
| authorization | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly reflects a mutating operation. It adds valuable behavioral insight beyond annotations: that a stop yields explicit partial progress and that resumption uses the same hash. This clarifies failure/resume semantics without contradicting the structured metadata.
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-load the primary action and then add a critical behavioral note about stops/resume. No filler or redundancy; every clause 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?
The description covers the core operation and resume behavior, but with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, it lacks essential details like success indicators, error/failure formats, and what 'guarded plans' entail. It is adequate for a rough understanding but not complete for dependable invocation.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. The description only implicitly references expectedHash via 'same hash' and 'guarded plans', but gives no explanation of batchId or authorization. It fails to meaningfully compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving an agent to guess their purpose.
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 action ('Approve... and execute') on a specific resource ('complete ordered company batch') and distinguishes it from the singular 'billy_execute' sibling by explicitly mentioning batch and sequential guarded stages. It is clear, actionable, and non-tautological.
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 usage context: it is for batch execution, and hints at a resume workflow after a stop ('Resume the same hash after inspecting the cause'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like billy_execute or billy_batch_prepare, nor does it state when NOT to use it. The guidance is present but limited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.