Apply edits (batch)

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it describes atomicity, reversibility, two-phase validation (validate-then-apply), all-or-nothing rollback, risk classification (medium vs high based on delete_object), requirement for approval_token for high risk, and the snapshot mechanism for revert. Annotations only indicate destructiveHint: true; the description enriches this with detailed operational behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, parameter details, validation, risk, and return shape. However, it is relatively verbose; while every sentence adds value, a slightly more condensed presentation could be achieved without losing clarity. Still, it's highly effective and organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch edits with many op types), the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, validation behavior, risk levels, return shape (BatchEditResult with pipeline fields), and includes an example. The schema and annotations are supplemented well, and the description leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for top-level parameters, so the description bears the full burden. It thoroughly explains the `edits` parameter: a non-empty ordered list (max 64) of typed edits, each with an `op` field, lists all supported ops, and provides examples. It also explains `approval_token` context (required for high risk). This adds extensive meaning beyond the schema's raw structure.

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 clearly states: 'Apply an ordered list of typed DOM edits to a document as ONE atomic, reversible operation.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that for a single edit use the dedicated tool, and for path geometry or cross-document composition use those tools directly. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from alternatives.

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 description explicitly includes a 'When to use' section: 'making SEVERAL edits to one document in a single call... instead of N separate tool round-trips.' It also states: 'For a single edit, call the dedicated tool... for path geometry or cross-document composition use those tools directly (they are NOT batchable).' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing alternatives.

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