bulk_update_looks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about the key semantic question: whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared (critical when a 'partial' sibling exists). It also omits failure handling for a batch of look updates, permission requirements, and whether changes are reversible.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the second sentence is close to restating schema fields.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous relationship to bulk_update_looks_partial, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine merge semantics, partial-failure behavior, or which sibling to choose.

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%, so the schema already documents looks, lookId, name, description, and the fixtureValues/channels structure, making a baseline of 3 appropriate. The description adds only a field enumeration that largely mirrors the schema and does not clarify merge-vs-replace semantics for the nested fixtureValues.

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 and resource ('Update multiple looks in a single operation') and enumerates the updatable fields (name, description, fixture values). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling bulk_update_looks_partial or from single-look update_look/update_look_partial.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. Given the presence of update_look, update_look_partial, and especially bulk_update_looks_partial, the agent is left to guess which bulk variant applies.

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