batch_update_dependency_view_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default return behavior ('summary plus changed ids') and the verbose option. However, it does not mention whether updates merge or replace existing fields, how partial failures are handled, or any permission requirements, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a concise note on return behavior. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core action and default return value, but given the absence of annotations and an output schema, it omits important details for a batch update tool: whether updates are merge-based or replace-based, error handling for partial updates, and prerequisites like view existence. These gaps make it only moderately complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Since the schema has zero description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'nodes' contain layouts or notes, giving meaning to x/y/collapsed/note. It also clarifies the 'verbose' parameter. It does not explain projectId/viewId, but these are contextually obvious from the tool name and schema, and the nodes and verbose explanations are the most valuable additions.

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 a specific action ('Update') and a specific resource ('multiple task node layouts or notes inside a dependency planning view'). The word 'multiple' distinguishes it from the sibling tool update_dependency_view_node, which handles a single node.

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 a batch use case through 'multiple' but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus update_dependency_view_node or provide exclusion criteria. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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