sch_update_properties

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals mutation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not explain what happens to an existing property when updated (e.g., overwrite), nor does it mention side effects or validation. The description simply restates the action without enriching the safety profile.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word is meaningful; there is no redundancy or filler. This is ideal conciseness.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters and a destructive hint, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial information such as valid property names, whether the symbol must exist prior to update, and the scope of 'placed symbol' (e.g., on which sheet). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the operational context is still incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not. While 'field', 'value', and 'reference' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify that 'reference' identifies the placed symbol, 'field' is the property name, and 'value' is the replacement value. This leaves ambiguity.

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 'Update a property on a placed symbol' clearly identifies the action (update) and the target (property on a placed symbol). It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other update-like schematic tools.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives. It lacks any contextual hints such as 'to modify symbol position use sch_move_symbol' or required prior steps like placing a symbol.

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