Batch Modify Entities

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

The description reveals that it applies multiple modifications in a single call but does not disclose behavior on partial failure or atomicity. With only readOnlyHint=false provided by annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral context; the current text is minimal and leaves important operational questions unanswered.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with a clear main sentence, a concrete example, and a short scope/limitation statement. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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 description clearly states scope, alternatives, and gives an example. The schema covers parameter details, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained). The main gap is the lack of information about failure handling or atomicity, but given the other strengths, it is nearly complete.

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 describes the 'operations' parameter and its actions in detail, providing 100% coverage. The description adds an example that illustrates usage, which is helpful, but it does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply multiple modifications') and resource ('entities') and clearly lists the supported actions (move/rotate/scale/delete/set_properties). This distinguishes it from single-action tools like entity_move or entity_scale, and from cad_batch.

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 explicitly states what the tool covers ('Covers move/rotate/scale/delete/set_properties only') and directs users to cad_batch for anything else, ordering, or chaining results. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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