batch_operations

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), which the description does not contradict. The description adds only the 'local' qualifier for workflow steps and the step-type list; it does not disclose error behavior, execution-mode effects, or what summary/steps/emits responses contain, so added value beyond annotations is minimal.

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?

Twelve words in a single sentence, verb-front-loaded, with no filler or redundant content. Every word earns its place by naming either the action or the specific step types.

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?

This is a complex tool — eight parameters, a required nested operations array with no item schema (additionalProperties only), three enum parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema. The description does not explain how to structure an operation item, what the response looks like, or how the response_mode/output_mode options differ, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does clarify the key required parameter: operations can be either calls or local select/assert/poll/foreach/emit steps. But the other seven parameters (execution, max_chars, output_mode, response_mode, stop_on_error, request_id, unity_instance) receive no semantic explanation anywhere, so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific action ('Run') and a concrete resource ('calls or local select/assert/poll/foreach/emit workflow steps'), so an agent can tell that this tool executes operations rather than inspecting state. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling call_operation, leaving the batch-vs-single distinction to be inferred from the tool name.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose batch_operations over call_operation, get_result, or the other siblings. There are no use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions stated; an agent must infer from the name alone that this is for running multiple operations at once.

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