update_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates all supported property fields, including nested style options and layout enum values, giving good insight into what can be changed. However, it does not mention whether updates merge or overwrite existing properties, side effects, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear args list. Every line adds value, and the supported fields are organized logically with a nested style object and enum values presented inline. No filler or redundancy.

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 (3 params, nested object, many editable fields), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter semantics, enumerates all updatable properties, and even lists valid layout values. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description fully equips an agent to invoke this 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?

The input schema provides only parameter names and types (0% schema description coverage), so the description entirely compensates. It clearly explains each argument: mural_id, widget_id, and properties, and lists every supported field within properties, including the style sub-object and layout allowed values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update an area (swimlane/zone) widget on a mural,' specifying the verb, resource, and widget type. It distinguishes itself from sibling update tools like update_sticky_note and update_shape by explicitly naming 'area (swimlane/zone).'

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to update area widgets on a mural. It implicitly differentiates from other update tools by focusing on area-specific properties, though it does not explicitly state alternative tools or when not to use it.

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