batch_replace_color

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

There are no annotations, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It discloses that the operation replaces a color, but does not mention whether this modifies fills, strokes, effects, other color properties, whether it is destructive/reversible, whether it affects selected nodes or the whole document, or what happens with the optional scope node.

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?

A single short sentence with no redundant words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 mutating batch operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description is too minimal to fully support correct invocation: it does not clarify scope semantics, matching behavior, whether nodeId limits 'all nodes', what properties are affected, or whether there are side effects. Given the large sibling list and the batch/global ambiguity, more context is needed.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (find, replace, nodeId), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond 'across all nodes' and does not clarify hex format, color matching behavior, or how nodeId scopes the replacement, but it also does not need to repeat the schema.

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 clear action ('Replace') and object ('a color across all nodes'), and the optional nodeId implies scoping. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling color_replace_global or from set_fill, and 'across all nodes' is slightly ambiguous about whether it replaces fills, strokes, or other color properties.

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 such as set_fill, color_replace_global, or batch_replace_text. The phrase 'across all nodes' implies a batch use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or mention of how optional nodeId affects the operation.

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