bulk_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is a bulk mutation. It discloses nothing about reversibility, undo support, permissions, partial-failure behavior when some nodeIds are invalid, or whether the result reports affected nodes, leaving an agent unable to predict side effects.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the supported-property list, then the targeting modes. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 5-parameter bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers targeting and valid properties but omits value semantics, return behavior, and failure/undo characteristics. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation of this scope.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the valid property values plus the nodeIds/nodeTypes/rootNodeId targeting combination. The critical 'value' parameter, whose expected type varies with the chosen property, is left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb and scope ('Apply one property across many nodes') and enumerates the supported properties, so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as bulk_rename or the single-property setters (set_corner_radius, set_fill_color), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It describes three targeting modes (nodeIds, nodeTypes under rootNodeId, or the whole current page), which is useful selection guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the per-node/per-property siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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