update_arrow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies partial update via 'fields to update' and provides inline enums for arrowType and tip, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether non-specified fields are preserved or reset. This is adequate but leaves 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 appropriately sized given the parameter complexity. It opens with a clear purpose, then uses a structured 'Args' list to document parameters and allowed values. Every element serves a purpose, and the inline enums avoid verbose prose.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics thoroughly. It lacks some contextual details like whether certain properties are interdependent (e.g., startRefId/endRefId must reference valid widgets), but overall it is complete enough for a typical update operation.

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 fully compensates by listing all supported fields for the 'properties' object, including nested structures like style and label. It also gives one-line meanings for mural_id and widget_id. This provides complete semantic context 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 the tool updates an arrow (connector) widget on a mural, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling update tools (e.g., update_shape, update_text) by specifying the widget type.

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 context is clear for when to use this tool: when updating arrow widgets. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use update_shape for other shapes'). The specificity of 'arrow (connector)' implies the scope, but explicit guidance would strengthen this.

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