update_sticky_note

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral details, but it only lists updatable fields. It does not explain merge semantics, whether unspecified fields are reset, permissions required, or error behavior. The lack of side-effect or edge-case disclosure makes it less transparent.

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 front-loaded with the purpose sentence. The parameter list is dense but readable. No unnecessary prose, though the long single line for properties fields could be better structured.

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 core parameters and many supported fields, but lacks details on nested style objects, valid value ranges, and error scenarios. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but input semantics are incompletely documented for a tool with a complex properties object.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is needed. It explains mural_id and widget_id minimally, and lists many supported fields for the properties object. However, field types and detailed semantics (e.g., units, interaction between text and htmlText) are missing, so it only partially compensates.

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 a sticky note widget on a mural, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_shape and update_text by naming 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_sticky_notes or other update tools. The context is implied by the name and description, but there are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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