batch_remove_strokes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that strokes are removed, which signals a destructive mutation, but it does not clarify whether the operation applies recursively to descendants, whether the root node itself is included, whether it is undoable, or what other side effects may occur. The term 'scope' is underdefined.

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 resource. There is no redundancy, and every word contributes to the essential meaning.

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 batch operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not define the extent of 'scope,' explain whether the root node and all descendants are affected, or mention return behavior or side effects. An agent could call this tool with an incorrect mental model of what nodes will be modified.

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 100% because nodeId is described as 'Root node.' The description adds the concept of a 'scope' linking nodeId to the set of nodes affected, but it does not elaborate on how the scope is determined. This adds marginal meaning beyond the schema but leaves important semantics ambiguous.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Remove all strokes from nodes in a scope.' This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like set_stroke or batch_remove_effects, though it does not explicitly name them. The term 'scope' is somewhat vague, but the overall purpose 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention set_stroke, batch_remove_effects, or remove_all_effects, nor does it specify whether this tool is preferred over per-node stroke removal. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage from the name and description alone.

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