Update multiple fixture instances in one atomic operation to batch rename, reposition, or re-tag theatrical lighting fixtures; all changes succeed or fail together.
Update multiple fixture instances in a single atomic operation. All updates succeed or fail together. Useful for batch renaming, repositioning, or re-tagging fixtures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fixtures | Yes | Array of fixture updates to apply |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait that updates are atomic ('All updates succeed or fail together'). However it omits whether unlisted fields are left untouched vs cleared, permission requirements, and any error/response behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and atomicity before the use-case examples. No filler, every sentence contributes.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and atomicity but leaves partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved) and permission/error behavior unstated. Adequate but not complete for the risk profile.
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 nested fields (name, tags, layoutX/Y, universe, startChannel, etc.) are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Update') and resource ('multiple fixture instances') and adds the distinguishing batch scope ('single atomic operation'). This lets an agent separate it from the singular update_fixture_instance without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
It gives clear usage context ('batch renaming, repositioning, or re-tagging'), which tells the agent when this batch tool is appropriate. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to update_fixture_instance for single-item edits, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.