execute_commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable traits: all commands run atomically, undo as a single action, and it works across plan and assembly namespaces. These are behavioral details not apparent from the schema. While it doesn't cover error handling or return format, the disclosed atomicity and undo behavior are significant and go beyond a generic 'execute' description.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the key preference over execute_command, followed by the core functionality and behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, speed advantage, atomicity/undo, and namespace coverage. No redundant or filler words.

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 batch command execution tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to prefer it, atomicity, undo, and namespaces. It lacks explicit mention of failure behavior (e.g., what happens if one command fails), but atomicity implies all-or-nothing. Given the complexity of batch execution, this is complete enough for most agents.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., commands array, namespace, description). It reinforces the 'multiple commands' aspect but does not expand on parameter semantics.

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 function: 'Execute multiple commands in a single call.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling execute_command by emphasizing the batch capability and speed advantage. This provides a specific verb (execute), resource (commands), and scope (multiple, in one call), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'PREFERRED over execute_command' and explains why: 'much faster than calling execute_command repeatedly.' It also indicates supported namespaces ('plan (project:*) and assembly (harness:*)'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. This goes beyond a simple when-to-use by naming the alternative and the advantage.

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