更新白板元素

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it never states that omitted fields are left unchanged (partial-update semantics), that up to 200 elements may be batched, or that a stale write raises VERSION_CONFLICT instead of overwriting — the latter only appears in the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ID requirement appears before the list of modifiable properties. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral and usage context is thin.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation's risk is tempered by destructiveHint=false plus idempotency. Still, for a batch mutation tool touching up to 200 elements with optimistic concurrency, the absence of any note on partial updates or the inspect-then-update version flow leaves a meaningful gap.

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 67%, with boardId and expectedVersion documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description does add that updates are keyed by exact element ID and enumerates the modifiable attributes, but it does not explain the array-of-updates structure or that each item needs only an id plus the changed fields.

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 gives a specific verb (更新/批量修改), the resource (白板元素) and the update dimensions (文本、位置、尺寸、颜色、旋转), plus the key constraint that elements are addressed by exact ID. This implicitly separates it from whiteboard_add_elements, whiteboard_delete_elements and whiteboard_align_elements, though no sibling is named.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious prerequisite workflow (calling whiteboard_inspect to obtain element IDs and the version). The phrase 按准确元素 ID hints that IDs are required but never says where to get them or how this differs from whiteboard_align_elements or whiteboard_native_edit.

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