batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the single most important trait — all-or-nothing atomic execution — which is real value. However it says nothing about what happens when one command in the list fails, whether commands execute in array order, whether later commands see the effects of earlier ones, or whether a document must be open first.

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?

One well-formed sentence with the key property (atomicity) placed at the end as the distinguishing clause; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but there is no wasted wording.

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 a nested command-list input, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core concept but leaves the agent guessing about failure semantics, execution order, and what the batch returns (per-command results vs. a single status). It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, so the single 'commands' array and its command/params members are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or naming-convention detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and scope: running a series of FigCraft design-manipulation commands atomically in one batch transaction. This clearly separates it from single-command siblings like create_node or set_properties, but it never names those siblings or says 'use this instead of issuing each command separately', so the differentiation is inferred rather than asserted.

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 word 'atomik' implies the use case (multiple dependent edits that must all succeed or all fail), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must derive that individual command tools exist as the non-batch path from sibling names alone.

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