bulk_set_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses write behavior, per-entry nested-write guards, the need for expectedVersion on array/map properties, and confirmTypeChange for shape changes. However, it does not mention response structure, error handling, or atomicity, leaving a minor gap 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 two sentences of tightly packed information: purpose, use case, entry structure, and guard conditions. No redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes.

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 the tool's complexity (array of nested updates) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, use case, and per-entry guards. The schema fully documents the prompt and cellName parameters, so the description need not repeat them. It could mention that it processes all entries in one batch, but the core context is sufficient.

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 the schema already documents all parameters and their meanings. The description adds only a slight clarification: 'Each entry specifies an object name and properties to set' and reiterates the guard conditions, which are already in the schema. This provides marginal added value beyond the schema.

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 'Set properties on multiple objects in a single call,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling set_property by emphasizing 'multiple objects' and 'mass-editing children of a component,' which uniquely identifies its bulk purpose.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Useful for mass-editing children of a component (e.g., changing colors).' It also references the same guards as set_property, implying when to use the single-object variant, but does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., 'for a single object, use set_property').

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