Write element properties

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial safety behavior that nothing is written unless dry_run=false, plus the full result taxonomy ('applied', 'failed' grouped by code/message, 'skipped' with the precise reasons an element is not editable, and partial 'stopped' batches). This is exactly the behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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-loads the dry-run default and keeps everything in one dense but readable passage. The long parenthetical enumerating skip reasons is slightly heavy but each clause conveys distinct, actionable information.

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 shapes need not be spelled out, yet the description still enumerates status outcomes, which is helpful. The remaining gap is the structure of the 'changes' payload, which an agent needs in order to actually invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run's default and effect well, but the required 'changes' array (items of free-form objects) and the 'port' parameter are never defined, leaving the core payload semantics undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Write element property values.' This cleanly separates it from the read counterpart get_element_data in the sibling list, and an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: dry-run is the default and returns planned changes, and dry_run=false commits. It does not name alternative tools or describe when to prefer them, but the when-to-commit context is well covered.

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