Update Frame Children

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It details: wholesale replacement via childElementIds, drag behavior, handling of unresolvable IDs (returned as 'missing'), resize logic with padding and title band, and the special case of an empty array skipping resize. This is comprehensive and transparent, with no contradictions.

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 (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information (wholesale replacement, element types, behavior, resize options, clear ownership). It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for readability.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers main behaviors but lacks some completeness. It hints at output (missing IDs) but doesn't fully describe return values. Error conditions (e.g., invalid blockId, missing workspace) are not addressed. Parameter count and required fields are fully described, but overall completeness is slightly below excellent due to missing output details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value: it explains that childElementIds is a full replacement list, clarifies the default and effect of resizeToFit (recompute xywh), specifies padding default (40px), and notes that empty array clears ownership with no resize. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 it replaces a frame block's contents wholesale, specifying the resource (frame) and the action (replace children). It lists the types of elements accepted (surface and edgeless blocks), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_surface_element or delete_surface_element that operate on individual elements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with all related siblings (e.g., update_edgeless_block), but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool: to replace all children of a frame. It covers behavior for dragging, missing IDs, and options like resizeToFit and padding. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives for incremental updates (e.g., add_surface_element). The usage context is implied but not fully delineated.

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