update_element_id

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

The annotations only indicate this is not a read-only operation, and the description adds little behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose whether the new ID must be unique, whether dependent references are updated, whether the operation can be undone, or what side effects may occur.

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 compact, front-loads the core action, and includes a clean Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-integer mutation, the description covers the core action and both parameters adequately. However, it omits important operational context such as ID uniqueness, effects on elements referencing the old ID, and how this relates to sibling tools like renumber_elements.

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 0%, but the description compensates by defining old_id as 'Existing element ID' and new_id as 'New element ID'. This adds meaningful clarification beyond the bare integer types in the schema, though it does not mention constraints like uniqueness or existence.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Change an element's ID'. This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from update_node_id by targeting element IDs specifically. The Chinese annotation reinforces the meaning but does not add ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as renumber_elements or update_node_id. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context signals explaining the preferred scenario for this tool.

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