batchRun multiple FigCraft commands as a single all-or-nothing undo step, and reference earlier step results in later parameters with $step.
Several commands as one undo step (command.batch), all-or-nothing. A step may use what an earlier step returned: {"$step": n} anywhere in its params becomes the id of step n (zero-based).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| commands | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new traits: atomicity/all-or-nothing semantics, a single undo entry for the whole batch, and the $step data-passing mechanism. It still omits what is returned and what state is left after a mid-batch failure, but the added context is substantial.
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 dense sentences with no filler; the atomicity/undo-scope claim is front-loaded before the $step mechanics. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive batch executor with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers the core execution model but leaves the return value, failure/rollback details, and the label parameter unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains the commands array structure and the {$step: n} cross-step reference convention (a real coding rule not expressible in the schema), but the 'label' parameter is never mentioned at all.
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+resource ('Several commands as one undo step') plus the underlying command name (command.batch), which tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It is distinguishable from run_command by the 'several/all-or-nothing' framing, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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 'one undo step, all-or-nothing' phrasing implies when to reach for it (multiple related mutations that must succeed or fail together), but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to run_command for single commands. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.