feature_refine_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the batch nature and the derivability heuristic. However, it does not say whether existing acceptance criteria are overwritten, whether a conferral is required for execution, or what happens in error or return cases, leaving important behavioral context undisclosed.

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 exactly three sentences with no fluff: the action, the rationale, and the routing rule. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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?

This is a complex batch mutation tool with a required nested conferral object and no output schema. The description provides a clear decision framework but omits side effects, overwrite semantics, and return behavior; the schema supplies the conferral contract, but the description alone is not fully sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema covers cwd and conferral well but leaves actor and items thin, with only 50% coverage overall. The description adds useful meaning for items by explaining that acceptance criteria are derivable from body/code/docs and that undecidable cases should become gates, but it does not explain actor or the non-acceptance item fields, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence states a specific action (Set acceptance criteria) on a specific resource (many features at once), so the purpose is immediately clear. It contrasts with one-at-a-time work, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool such as feature_update, so it does not quite reach the top distinction score.

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?

It gives an explicit positive condition for use: acceptance criteria are mostly derivable from the body, code, and docs, so batch work avoids needless round trips. It also gives an explicit negative rule: anything genuinely undecidable should become a gate rather than a guess, which routes the agent away from this tool when a decision cannot be derived.

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