update_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses atomic validation (an error changes nothing), that type-mismatched parameters are silently ignored and reported in `avertissements`, and that locked objects remain editable. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond a plain "update". It stops short of documenting permissions or full response shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and a compact semicolon-delimited field list, then the validation contract. Dense but each clause earns its place given 25 parameters; the run-on structure is the only minor readability cost.

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 25-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key behavioral contract (all-or-nothing validation, ignored params surfaced in `avertissements`, locked-object handling) and scopes object-type-specific params. It doesn't fully enumerate every parameter's effect but is adequate to call correctly.

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 64% with 25 parameters, so the description must add value, and it does: it clarifies the text/markdown literal-vs-markup interplay, the `cell`+`text` combination, connector-only fields, and that irrelevant params are ignored and surfaced in `avertissements`. This layers semantics over the schema rather than repeating it.

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?

States a specific verb ("Modifies") and resource ("an object") and enumerates the concrete facets handled: text, position, size, colors, line style, font, lock, rotation, connector route/arrows/ends, and one table cell. This clearly scopes what the tool can mutate, though it never names the overlapping siblings (move_objects, format_text, arrange_objects) so the agent must infer partitioning.

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?

"Locked objects can still be modified here" implies a when-to-use condition vs tools that may refuse locked objects, and the type-matching rule hints at applicability. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over move_objects/format_text/arrange_objects, leaving routing largely to inference.

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