update_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and delivers: merge semantics ('set' is merged, not replaced), side effects (version and nonce are bumped), and the conditional re-measurement behavior when text/fontSize change without width/height. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and return values, but the core mutation traits are well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each behavioral caveat (version/nonce bump, re-measurement) earns its place as a side effect an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Strong on the topics it covers, but with no output schema and no annotations the description omits the return value, behavior when an id does not exist, and any scene/room preconditions. For a mutation tool these are meaningful gaps, though the core call mechanics are adequately specified.

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 largely does: it explains that 'set' is merged over the element and documents the special keys (text, fontSize, width, height) and their interaction. The id parameter's meaning is covered by 'by id'. Enumerating all valid set keys would be impractical since set is free-form.

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 and resource ('Patch existing elements by id') and discloses the mechanism ('set' is merged). The patch semantics clearly distinguish it from siblings like add_elements and delete_elements without needing to inspect schemas.

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 word 'existing' implies the tool is for elements already present rather than new ones, giving implicit separation from add_elements. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named.

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