set_element_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool overwrites the input SVG unless output_svg_path is provided, a critical destructive behavior. It also specifies boolean and millimeter value formats. However, it does not mention error handling, idempotency, or whether multiple calls accumulate changes. Still, the key behavioral trait is covered.

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 compact paragraph with the purpose upfront, followed by details. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly better structured (e.g., bullet points for parameter guidelines). Every sentence adds information, and it is reasonably concise for the complexity.

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, no annotations, and a complex object parameter, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and a key behavior (overwrite). However, it does not describe the return value (likely success indicator or modified SVG) or error conditions (e.g., invalid param names, missing elements). For a mutation tool, these are notable omissions.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the updates parameter structure (element id -> {param: value}) and that null removes a param. It lists example param names from list_known_params. It clarifies the output_svg_path role. But it does not explain the svg_path parameter beyond being required, leaving a small gap. Overall, adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Set or remove Ink/Stitch stitch parameters on SVG elements.' It uses a specific verb ('set or remove') and identifies the resource (SVG elements with stitch parameters). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_element_params (read) and list_known_params (list valid param names).

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 how to use the updates parameter: maps element id to param-value pairs, with null to remove. It also mentions that param names must come from list_known_params, giving examples. It notes the overwrite behavior with output_svg_path as a safeguard. However, it does not explicitly compare to other mutation tools like transform_elements or cleanup_document, lacking explicit when-not alternatives.

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