batch_update_paragraph_config

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

Goes beyond annotations (which only give readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) by disclosing merge semantics ('each config is deep-merged with that paragraph's existing config'), execution order (sequential), and partial-failure handling ('one failing item does not stop the rest; failures are reported in the result'). Those are exactly the behaviors an agent needs to predict outcomes of a batch 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?

Front-loads the purpose and the strongest usage guidance in the first three sentences, with prerequisites before the Args block. The Args block partially restates schema titles but adds real meaning; a little redundancy, no filler.

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 an output schema and annotations present, the description covers merge behavior, prerequisites, ordering, and error semantics — enough to call it correctly. The only soft spot is that the per-item config schema is left to a sibling reference, requiring the agent to look up update_paragraph_config.

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 carry the load: it documents notebook_id as the container and configs as a list of {paragraph_id, config}, and points to update_paragraph_config for the config dict shape (graph.mode, keys/groups/values). The nested ParagraphConfig is explained at the top level but the per-item config internals are deferred to a sibling rather than described inline.

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 visualization/chart config for multiple paragraphs') and immediately frames itself as the batch counterpart of update_paragraph_config. An agent can distinguish it from update_paragraph_config, batch_update_paragraph, and batch_edit_paragraph from the first sentence 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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer this over many update_paragraph_config calls — it collapses N round-trips into one.' It also states a prerequisite (run each paragraph at least once first, or column index/aggr cannot be auto-filled) with the fallback behavior spelled out, so both when-to-use and when-not-to-expect-autofill are covered.

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