update_element

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'update' implies mutation, but fails to explain whether updates are partial (PATCH) or full, required permissions, side effects on other elements, or error behavior (e.g., shape not found).

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?

Two sentences, 20 words, front-loaded with action and modifiable attributes. Efficient but could be more structured with a sentence on typical usage or return value.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated shape object, confirmation). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in completeness.

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 semantic grouping of parameters by category (name, position, size, etc.), providing context beyond the schema. However, it does not detail format constraints (e.g., hex color format, coordinate system).

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 action (update), the resource (existing shape on a Penpot page), and lists the modifiable attributes (name, position, size, fill color, corner radius, visibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_element or delete_element.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining shape ID via get_components) or contexts where this tool is inappropriate.

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