place_tiles_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Auto-solves,' which hints at automatic solving behavior, but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., validation, side effects, or performance implications). Critical details like permissions, idempotency, or error handling are missing.

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 extremely concise with just two short sentences ('Place multiple tiles at once. Auto-solves.'), front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language.

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 complexity of a batch operation with potential side effects ('Auto-solves'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or the scope of 'Auto-solves,' leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand tool behavior fully.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'tiles' parameter as an array of objects with x, y, and type properties. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying batch processing, which is already clear from the schema's array structure. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Place multiple tiles at once') and the resource ('tiles'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'place_tile' (single tile placement), which is a missed opportunity for full clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'place_tile' for single placements or other tile-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for batch operations.

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