Arsenkin: batch prepare

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it clarifies the write is limited to an 'approval record only, no spend' and calls the approval 'bounded', which tells the agent the side effect is scoped and non-monetary. It does not address retry/idempotency behavior, which is a minor remaining gap given the annotations already cover safety.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the effect and immediately followed by workflow position and side-effect scope. No filler sentences.

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 output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the workflow ordering is complete. However, the opaque 'requests' payload is a real gap for a batch tool, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call from the description alone.

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 single parameter 'requests' is an array of open objects with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its shape or contents. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it does not, so an agent cannot tell what to put in requests.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create one bounded approval for a batch') that clearly differs from siblings like arsenkin_prepare and arsenkin_batch_submit. The batch scope and approval artifact are named explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: 'Use after arsenkin_batch_estimate; then arsenkin_batch_submit.' This routes the agent to the correct workflow position and names both adjacent tools, leaving nothing to inference.

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