batch_resolve_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful behavior: results are ordered and independent, batching is not identity confirmation, and ambiguous or misspelled names should be handled separately. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or what 'same safeguards as resolve_record' actually entails, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: action/scope, return behavior, and a critical caveat. The warning is front-loaded after the outcome rather than buried, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple batch tool, the description covers the core purpose, output semantics, and a key caveat. It is incomplete around the request object's fields, and the 'same safeguards as resolve_record' reference pushes responsibility to a sibling description. Still, with an output schema present and only one top-level parameter, an agent can likely invoke it correctly after inspecting the schema.

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 must compensate. It gives high-level meaning for the request payload ('names/IDs', '1–10') but never maps this to the requests array or explains the nested ResolveRequest fields (query, collection_id, context_record_ids). The count and query intent are covered, but optional parameters are entirely unaddressed.

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 clear action ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('names/IDs'), and a scope ('1–10 ... together'), making it distinct from the single-item sibling resolve_record. It also adds purposeful output semantics ('ordered, independent resolution tickets and candidate context'). The only slight gap is that it references resolve_record's safeguards without defining them, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the '1–10 ... together' phrasing suggests using this tool when multiple names or IDs must be resolved, and the reference to resolve_record identifies the related alternative. However, it never states 'use resolve_record for a single name' or gives when-not-to-use conditions. The warning about ambiguous/misspelled names is guidance for interpreting results, not tool selection.

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