Update Live Pure Data Object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool only operates on 'agent-created' objects and that it 'rebuilds the visible MCP live canvas' as a side effect, which is useful context. However, it does not mention mutability, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields, making it only partially 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 a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action verb and packs the core information—resource, fields, and side effect—without any wordiness. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 empty input schema and lack of annotations or output schema, the tool is under-specified. The description reveals the types of changes but omits essential details such as how to specify the object, how parameters are passed, and what the tool returns. This leaves the agent unable to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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?

With zero parameters in the schema, the description must compensate, and it does mention the updatable fields (type, arguments, coordinates). Yet it fails to specify how to identify the target object or provide any syntax for these updates. The baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description only partially fulfills the need, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Update' as the verb, clearly identifies the resource as an 'agent-created live object', and specifies the fields affected (type, arguments, or coordinates). It also notes the consequential rebuild of the visible MCP live canvas, which differentiates it from related tools like pd_live_move_object or pd_set_params.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pd_live_move_object or pd_set_params. The description implies usage for updating object attributes but does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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