set_multiple_text_contents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosure. It only mentions 'parallelly', hinting at concurrent execution, but fails to disclose effects such as whether existing text is replaced, whether the operation is atomic, or if special permissions are needed. This is a significant 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 concise, using a single sentence that front-loads the action. However, the word 'parallelly' is non-standard and slightly awkward, which slightly reduces clarity. Overall, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 operation with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It lacks context about return values, failure modes, or behavior on partial failures. A richer description would be needed to fully guide an agent in using this tool correctly.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional semantic value about parameters (e.g., that 'nodeId' is the parent container and 'text' is an array of child node-specific replacements). The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the explanation.

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 tool's action: setting multiple text contents within a node. It uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('text contents'), and the word 'multiple' differentiates it from the sibling tool 'set_text_content'. However, 'parallelly' is an unusual adverb that could confuse, but the core purpose is clear.

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 like 'set_text_content'. It does not explicitly state that this should be used when updating several text nodes at once, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The user is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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