arsenkin_batch_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavior: 'trusted policy may accept it server-side', suggesting server-side auto-acceptance under certain conditions. However, it does not clarify side effects, required privileges, or what happens after the approval is created.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and includes a notable behavioral caveat. It is concise, though slightly under-specified in terminology like 'bounded'.

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?

The tool has a complex array parameter with additionalProperties allowed, yet the description leaves the request object semantics entirely undefined. An agent would have to infer what each item in 'requests' should contain. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but invocation correctness is compromised by missing parameter context.

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 provides no description for the 'requests' parameter, and the description does not compensate. While the name 'requests' and the word 'batch' imply an array of approval requests, the description gives no information about required fields, allowed object shapes, or constraints. At 0% schema coverage, this is a significant 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 description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create one bounded batch approval'. It clearly distinguishes this as a batch operation, which separates it from singular tools like arsenkin_prepare. The meaning of 'bounded' is somewhat jargon-like, but the overall intent is understandable.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like arsenkin_prepare, arsenkin_batch_submit, or arsenkin_submit. The phrase 'trusted policy may accept it server-side' hints at a possibility but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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