apply_document_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses atomic execution, validation, precondition checks, dry-run preview, and automatic rollback on failure, which are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know before calling it. It does not, however, describe the return value or the consequences of failed preconditions when dryRun is false, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the core action ('Executes') and front-loads the defining properties (atomic, validated, multi-step, precondition checks, dry-run, rollback). Every phrase carries distinct information with no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complex tool with six parameters, nested operation objects, and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level orientation but omits any mention of return format or result payload, which is a meaningful gap since no output schema exists. It also does not explain ordering guarantees or how preconditions interact with the atomic execution, though the schema partially covers these.

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 high (83%) and most parameters, including atomic, dryRun, operations, and preconditions, are already described in the schema. The description adds only high-level labels ('dry-run preview', 'precondition checks') that map to existing properties and does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Executes') and identifies the resource ('multi-step document mutation'), distinguishing it from single-operation siblings like apply_node_patch or batch_write_artboards by emphasizing atomicity, validation, precondition checks, dry-run preview, and rollback. This gives an agent a clear model of what the tool does without needing to open the schema.

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 usage for multi-step mutations needing atomicity and validation, but it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like apply_node_patch or batch_write_artboards, nor states when one would choose this over separate mutation calls. The context is clear about the tool's nature but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer selection criteria.

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