Change existing Inkscape SVG elements by ID, updating only the specified properties while merging style shorthands into existing styles. Set transform to an empty string to clear it.
Change existing elements. Each update is {"id": ..., }; only the given keys change. Style shorthands merge into the existing style. Set transform to "" to clear it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | No | ||
| preview | No | ||
| updates | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful mutation semantics: partial updates (only given keys change), style shorthand merging, and the empty-string idiom to clear a transform. It does not cover whether updates are reversible, error behavior on a missing id, or what the operation returns.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each adds a distinct piece of information (payload shape, partial-update rule, style merge, transform clearing) with no padding.
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?
For a no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the update payload but omits the target scoping (`doc_id`) and the dry-run flag (`preview`) — the latter being materially important since a preview mode suggests a non-committal path the agent should know about.
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, and it explains the structure and merge semantics of the `updates` payload ('id' plus any element-spec keys, partial change). However, `doc_id` and `preview` receive no mention at all, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.
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+resource ('Change existing elements') that cleanly separates it from add_elements and delete_elements in the sibling list. The distinction is inferable from the sibling names rather than stated explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. It never says to use update_elements instead of add_elements/delete_elements, nor what preconditions apply (does the element have to exist?). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.