update_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it lists supported fields, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates are incremental or full replacements, any permissions needed, reversibility, or side effects beyond the generic 'update' action.

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 structured with a clear purpose line and a parameter breakdown. The list of supported fields is necessary and not verbose, though it is somewhat long. It earns its place by providing critical detail for the 'properties' parameter.

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?

The description covers the complex nested properties comprehensively, which is essential for correct invocation. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, it lacks some behavioral context (e.g., whether all properties can be updated atomically), preventing a perfect score.

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 schema provides only minimal parameter definitions (e.g., 'properties' is an object with additionalProperties). The description compensates thoroughly by enumerating all supported fields (x, y, width, height, rotation, text, htmlText, style with nested properties, title, parentId, hidden), adding significant meaning beyond the 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 starts with 'Update a shape widget on a mural,' clearly stating the action (update), the resource (shape widget), and the context (on a mural). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_sticky_note or update_text, which target different widget types.

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 implies usage for updating shape widgets but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since sibling tools exist for other widget types, the context is clear, but no direct comparison or guidance is given.

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