batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses transactional semantics, failure stopping behavior, partial results, return shape, the no-rollback caveat, and that an undo block is created. This is exemplary transparency.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The return-object and failure-mode explanation is lengthy but necessary for a tool with no output schema. It is efficient overall, though it could be slightly better organized to avoid the run-on sentence structure.

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 complex batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: return values, error behavior, partial results, rollback semantics, and undo behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret failures.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining the commands array structure, the multi-step intent, nested batch refusal, and the detailed interaction between stop_on_error and return_partial_results. It does not explain undo_label, but the schema mostly carries the parameter docs.

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 what the tool does: it runs several bridge commands as one undo block and one round-trip. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling single-command tools because it emphasizes batching, atomic undo grouping, and the multi-step use case.

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 explicitly says to use the tool for multi-step edits and gives a concrete example (several set_fx_param calls). It also states a clear exclusion: nested batches are refused. It does not explicitly name the alternative for single-step commands, but the usage guidance is strong enough that an agent can infer when batch is appropriate.

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