create_workers_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It states parallel creation and task assignment/transmission, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing workers are affected), rate limits, idempotency, or the exact nature of 'task assignment and transmission'. The permission note is helpful but insufficient.

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 very concise (one sentence plus a permission note) and front-loads the main action. However, it omits important details that could be added without significant verbosity, slightly reducing its efficiency.

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 (6 parameters, batch creation, task assignment, and many siblings), the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter guidance, return value information (output schema exists but not described), and contextual differentiation from related tools like 'create_agent' or 'send_task'.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any parameter's meaning, especially the crucial 'worker_configs' array structure. Required parameters like 'repo_path' and 'base_branch' are also left undefined, offering no added value beyond the schema itself.

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 verb 'create' and resource 'workers in parallel', and includes the additional actions of task assignment and transmission. It also notes the permission restriction (Owner/Admin). However, it does not fully differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_agent' (single agent) or 'enqueue_task', and could be more precise about what constitutes a 'worker'.

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 mentions 'Owner/Admin only' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify scenarios where parallel creation is beneficial or when to avoid it, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'create_agent' for single worker creation.

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