edit_lab_nodes_by_template

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

No annotations were provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It comprehensively details the disambiguation process, the node selection mechanism, the component-specific handling (icon vs image searches and scopes), the interactive prompting for missing args, the lack of server-side session, and the mandatory node-stop before applying changes. This is exceptionally thorough.

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 long but well-structured, using clear sections and bullet-style paragraphs. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise by reducing repetition (e.g., the interactive prompting concept is explained multiple times). Every sentence earns its place, but the length is at the upper edge of practicality.

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 (12 parameters, multi-step flow, component-specific logic, confirmation requirement) and the complete absence of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers template resolution, node selection, component change semantics, icon/image scoping, interactive prompting, and confirmation. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed.

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 fully compensate for the 12 parameters. It does so by explaining each parameter's purpose, constraints (e.g., 'at least one of vendor or template'), search behavior (case-insensitive substring), selection logic, and special cases (icon/image value is unused). The explanation is richer than any schema alone could provide.

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 it bulk-edits interfaces/cpu/memory/icon/image across nodes of exactly one template. It specifies the verb ('Bulk-edit'), the resource ('nodes of exactly one template'), and the scope of allowed changes. This distinguishes it from other lab editing tools (e.g., edit_lab_node, edit_lab) and from listing tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it requires at least one of vendor or template, explains how disambiguation works if multiple templates match, and describes the multi-step prompting flow. It also states that the tool never targets more than one template per call, and implies that for single-node edits, edit_lab_node might be more appropriate. The final confirmation step is clearly documented.

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