sassy_batch

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing execution behavior: operations run through the normal tool call path, failures never raise, results return in request order with specific fields, and there are hard limits on operations and concurrency. It also acknowledges the tool can be either read-only or mutating, aligning with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: it covers dual-mode behavior, safety context, parameter semantics, error semantics, return format, and usage guidance. There is no filler or tautology, and critical warnings appear early.

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 provides enough detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: required operations structure, optional parameters with defaults, return value shape, and selection guidance. Even with an output schema present, describing the per-result fields adds completeness rather than redundancy.

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, and it succeeds: it explains the operations array format and max 50 operations, max_concurrent range and default, timeout_seconds as a per-operation ceiling, and stop_on_error semantics. It even specifies that sassy_batch cannot be nested, which is critical for agents constructing valid parameter values.

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 identifies sassy_batch as a scheduling primitive for running multiple tool operations, clarifying that it can be read-only or mutating depending on the operations. It does not state a crisp one-line verb phrase like 'executes a batch of tool calls,' but the purpose is discernible from the explanation and usage guidance.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use for independent fan-out; prefer stop_on_error for dependent pipelines and sequential calls when steps depend on prior results.' It also clarifies what the tool is not — a policy bypass — and explains that every operation runs through normal validation, audit, security, and rate limiting, which helps an agent decide when to use it.

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