Update an element

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description goes far beyond by explaining partial update semantics ('Only the fields you send are touched'), immutability of id and type, how to clear properties with null, and the critical fact that nothing is displayed until render_scene is called. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four paragraphs, each focused on a distinct aspect (what the tool does, use-cases, anti-patterns, edge cases/immutability/clearing, and rendering dependency). Every sentence serves a purpose; no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, all required, one being a nested object), the description fully covers usage, limitations, behavioral nuances, and integration with sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds enormous value: it explains how to use the `changes` parameter with concrete examples, clarifies that null clears optional properties, and eliminates ambiguity around partial updates. The schema itself is well-described, but the description contextualizes the schema's static definitions into actionable guidance.

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 uses the specific verb 'Change properties' targeting 'one element', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_element or remove_element. It also explicitly calls out what it does and does not do, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides excellent usage guidance: it tells when to use this tool ('USE THIS for every change that request'), provides examples of specific changes, and explicitly tells when NOT to use alternatives ('DO NOT call render_diagram again to change one thing'). It also gives a relative-move workaround using get_scene.

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