batch_round_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states the core mutation—rounding dimensions, positions, and spacing—but does not mention whether this affects only the root node or its subtree, whether changes are reversible, or whether it overwrites existing values irreversibly. For a mutating batch operation, this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning, specifying the action, scope, and exact target properties.

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?

Given the low complexity—one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema—this description plus the schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It would be more complete with a brief note on whether the rounding applies recursively, but the current definition still communicates the essential intent.

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 `nodeId` is documented in the schema as 'Root node', giving the agent a clear enough indication of scope. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning but none is strongly needed due to the 100% schema 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 states a specific verb ('Round') and a precise resource and scope ('all dimensions, positions, and spacing to whole pixels'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling batch tools, none of which target rounding to whole pixels.

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 implies when to use the tool—when the user wants whole-pixel values for layout properties—but it does not state when not to use it or name any alternative such as `fix_spacing` or `normalize_design`. Usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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