Modify instances

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is known. The description adds valuable transactional semantics: the batch is all-or-nothing with revert, and values use the Properties-panel notation. A 4 rather than 5 only because it doesn't spell out undo scope beyond 'one undoable step' (which it does state) or side effects on dependent instances, but annotations cover most of the safety profile.

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?

Four short paragraphs, each earning its place: purpose, batching pattern, atomicity, and notation pointer. Front-loaded with the core action. No fluff.

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 complex mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects (batching, atomicity, notation, alternative for scripts) that aren't in the structured fields. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly. No output schema means no expectation to explain return values.

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 100% and the schema itself explains fields in detail. The description additionally clarifies that multiple paths share one entry and references the notation details in the 'properties' field. It adds value by explaining the batching intent and pointing to a schema field rather than restating every parameter. A 4 because it leans on the schema for most detail, which is appropriate given 100% 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Sets properties, attributes and tags on existing instances') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create' (for new instances) and 'script_edit' (for changing a script's code). The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says to combine with 'find' to build path lists, and notes when to use 'script_edit' instead (for script code). This gives an agent clear decision criteria among siblings.

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