push_updates

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

The word 'Atomically' discloses an all-or-nothing behavior, and 'apply content updates' makes the write nature explicit. However, with no annotations, the description still omits auth requirements, failure/rollback semantics, and what happens to existing content.

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 sentences, with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying the freeform update items.

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 a freeform updates object and no annotations, this is too sparse. Missing screen_id semantics, what fields are valid, and how this relates to update_region; the atomicity note and item hint are not enough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the updates array ('Each item needs region_id and fields'), but it leaves screen_id unexplained and 'fields' underspecified, so compensation is only partial.

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 opens with a specific action ('Atomically apply content updates'), clearly stating the tool's verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_region or upsert_screen, but 'content updates' combined with atomicity is reasonably distinctive.

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 guidance on when to choose push_updates over update_region, render_preview, or upsert_screen. The only usage hint is the per-item requirement, which is parameter-level rather than selection context.

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