transaction

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

Disclosures atomicity, rollback on failure, and default behavior of rollbackOnError. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately informs about core behavior but does not mention success outcomes or side effects beyond rollback.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a key differentiator. No superfluous information.

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's complexity (two parameters, one nested array) and no output schema, the description covers atomicity, rollback, and operation types adequately. Lacks explanation of return value or error handling details, but the core use case is clear.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters fully. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'from on-disk backups') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'apply', resource 'batch of file operations', and atomicity. Distinguishes from the agent's built-in Edit by noting this is something it cannot do, providing sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with the agent's per-file Edit, implying when to use this tool (for atomic batch operations). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond that single comparison.

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