apply_node_patch

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'Executes' and 'dry-run support', but it does not disclose whether patches apply atomically, what happens on partial failure, whether destructive operations like delete require extra guardrails, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool handling delete and move, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core verb, target resource, supported operations, and dry-run capability are all included in a compact, scannable format.

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?

Despite broad schema coverage, this is a complex tool with seven patch operations, nested layout objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description is too thin to tell an agent how patches interact, what a successful response looks like, whether ordering matters, or when the tool should be preferred over the many sibling mutation tools.

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 schema already documents the parameters and nested patch fields. The description adds the 'unified declarative patch list' framing but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, which earns the baseline score of 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Executes') and a specific resource ('canvas nodes'), and enumerates exactly which patch operations are supported (setStyle, setText, rename, move, delete, duplicate, setLayout). This clearly distinguishes it from single-purpose sibling tools like move_nodes or delete_nodes.

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 this is for applying a batch of declarative patches to one or many nodes, and dry-run support is a useful conditional. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over siblings like apply_document_transaction, batch_write_artboards, or individual mutation tools, and it does not state any exclusions or alternatives.

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