bulk_update_looks_partial

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key merge-vs-replace semantic. However, it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, atomicity, or what happens when one look in the batch fails — material for a bulk mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 tightly written sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. The final use-case sentence is helpful rather than redundant, though the definition is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 the merge semantics but omits error/partial-failure behavior and permission requirements. Adequate to invoke correctly, but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining what mergeFixtures=true actually does to unmentioned fixtures and enumerating the per-look fields. This exceeds what the field descriptions alone convey.

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 (update), resource (multiple looks), and scope (partial fixture merging), and explicitly distinguishes itself from bulk_update_looks. An agent can tell it apart from update_look, update_look_partial, and bulk_update_looks without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative (bulk_update_looks) and the exact condition that selects this tool: preservation of existing fixtures when mergeFixtures=true. It even supplies a concrete batch use case (changing a channel value across many looks), leaving nothing to inference.

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