batch_write_artboards

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions atomicity and speed, but fails to explain whether the operation creates new artboards or overwrites existing ones, what happens on partial failure (though atomicity implies rollback), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and key attributes. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse, though it could benefit from a brief mention of typical use cases or constraints.

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 batch write operation with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify return behavior (e.g., success status, errors), the role of fileId, or any constraints on artboard properties beyond schema. The atomicity mention is helpful but not enough for an agent to confidently call the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond confirming that artboards contain HTML UI. It doesn't explain the optional fileId or the meaning of x/y/width/height beyond schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 the action: generating multiple artboards and populating their HTML UI. It mentions the batch nature and the atomic transaction, which distinguishes it from singular create_artboard. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like write_html or apply_document_transaction, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_artboard for single artboards or write_html for individual HTML updates. The description lacks context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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