edit_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Edit an existing element' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether edits are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical context 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Edit an existing element') and adds a clarifying scope ('of any type'). However, it's arguably too concise given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations.

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 mutation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'editing' means operationally, what happens after the edit, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself lacks necessary context.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'type' enum values and 'field' options). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Edit an existing element of any type' clearly states the verb ('edit') and resource ('element'), but it's vague about what constitutes an 'element' and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'create_element' or 'delete_element'. It specifies 'any type' which provides some scope, but lacks specificity about what editing entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_element', 'delete_element', and 'get_element_details', there's no indication of when editing is appropriate versus creating new elements or retrieving details. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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