update_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether updates are atomic, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens if nodeId is invalid, or whether the node must exist). No error behavior or return information is given.

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, clear sentence that lists the key updateable properties. It is front-loaded with the action and target, though it could be slightly more compact by grouping properties more efficiently. No redundancy or filler.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not address error handling, whether multiple properties can be updated in one call, constraints on input formats, or what the response contains. An agent would need to inspect the schema for details but still lacks behavioral context for a mutation operation.

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?

The schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to some parameters (dimensions, coordinates, etc.) but adds no new meaning beyond listing a few categories; it does not mention 'name' or 'image', and does not elaborate on constraints like opacity range or coordinate units.

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 updates an existing node's visual/geometric properties (dimensions, coordinates, fills, corner radius, opacity, visibility). It distinguishes from create and delete tools, though it omits the 'name' and 'image' properties that also appear in the schema, making the scope slightly incomplete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like set_stroke, set_text_content, or set_autolayout. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that this is a general-purpose update tool without knowing when a more specific setter would be preferable.

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