input_batch

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral trait: the VM remains locked by the session and requires vm_unlock afterward. The word 'validated' also hints at pre-execution validation. It does not fully explain failure behavior or partial execution, but the lock disclosure adds meaningful context that annotations do not provide.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core capability is front-loaded, and the critical lock caveat is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is quite complex with 13 action variants, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, yet the description remains only two sentences. It covers the lock/unlock contract but omits return value expectations, error handling, atomicity of the sequence, and whether prior locking is required. It is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent.

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 only 25%, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance whatsoever. It does not explain stop_on_error, screenshot_after, or the relationship between actions and vm_name. The schema is rich for the action objects, but the description itself fails to compensate for the low 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 a specific verb and resource: execute a validated sequence of mouse, keyboard, delay, clipboard, and focus actions in one guest round trip. It communicates both the scope and the batching nature, distinguishing it from the many single-action sibling tools.

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 phrase 'in one guest round trip' provides clear context that this tool is for batching sequences rather than issuing one-off actions. It also gives a concrete follow-up instruction to call vm_unlock when finished. It does not explicitly name alternative single-action tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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