annotation_batch_create_dimensions

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and non-readonly. The description adds context: batch creation in one Undo group and accepted dimension types/forms. No contradictions, but it doesn't cover failure modes or authorization needs, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 succinct sentences: first states the core function, second provides usage guidance and parameter hints. No redundant words; every sentence 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?

Given the tool complexity (nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers creation purpose, batch nature, and dimension types. It lacks details on output or structure, but output schema likely fills gaps. Sibling context is minimal but sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that data.dimensions accepts specific types (linear, diameter, etc.) in two forms, which adds value. However, it does not detail the object structure or include_screenshot semantics, so it is only partially helpful.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create two or more dimensions in one request and one Undo group.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (dimensions), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing batch creation and Undo group atomicity.

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 explicitly advises: 'Use this instead of repeatedly calling annotation.create_dimension_*.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It implies not to use for single dimensions but does not list all alternatives; a bit more explicit exclusion would earn a 5.

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