Set parameters (batch)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a key behavioral trait: per-update success reporting and lack of rollback. This is valuable context for an agent evaluating side effects and error handling. It adds meaningful information without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the most important behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

With a fully documented schema, annotations, and a description covering both purpose and non-transactional behavior, the tool description is largely complete for an agent. The only minor gap is lack of explicit guidance on response format or alternatives, but the description sufficiently covers the essential usage context.

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 already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including the path, parameters map, and the array semantics. The description adds little beyond restating the batch behavior, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Update parameters on multiple nodes in a single batch request.' This specifies a precise verb (update), resource (parameters on nodes), and scope (multiple nodes in a batch), distinguishing it from single-node tools like update_td_node_parameters.

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 implies the tool is for batch updates across multiple nodes, which guides when to use it. It also includes a critical caveat about non-transactional behavior ('a failure does not roll back the others'), which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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