set_element_box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads the current transform once (to preserve scale/shear) and applies one absolute transform update, and mentions an API limit of up to 2 calls. This provides useful behavioral context.

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 moderately concise, with a clear initial statement followed by a docstring section. While not overly verbose, it could be streamlined slightly without losing clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 4 required, no schema descriptions), the description thoroughly covers the behavior, parameter semantics, and transformation logic. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It provides a detailed docstring for each parameter, including optional semantics for width_pt and height_pt (preserve current if omitted). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 purpose: setting an element's position (and optionally size) in points. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `update_transform` by positioning as a convenience for bounding box placement without matrix computation.

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 this tool over `updatePageElementTransform` and notes it is a convenience method. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to siblings like `update_transform`.

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