Update multiple look boards in one call instead of editing each separately. Provide an array of look board IDs with optional fields to apply changes together.
Update multiple look boards in a single operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookBoards | Yes | Array of look board updates to apply |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the batch is atomic or per-item, what happens to fields omitted from an item, whether existing values are overwritten, or what permissions are needed for a mutation.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and resource. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but there is no wasted wording to trim.
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 batch mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical agent-facing questions unanswered: atomicity of the batch, failure semantics, and whether partial success is possible. The schema covers the inputs, but nothing covers behavior on invocation.
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 lookBoards array documents all seven updatable fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the notion of multiplicity, which the parameter name already conveys, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Update multiple look boards") and the modifier "in a single operation" distinguishes it from the single-item update_look_board sibling. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the bulk-vs-single relationship from the name alone.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for preferring this over repeated update_look_board calls, and no mention of the related bulk_create_look_boards or bulk_delete_look_boards tools. Usage is only implied by the plural "multiple".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.