update_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key semantics: the merge behavior ('patch is a partial element... merged over the existing one') and the special 'options'/'parts' wholesale replacement, plus the return ('Returns the ack'). This is beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't mention error conditions or concurrency.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then explains the core parameter semantics, then gives a usage example and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff. It is dense yet easy to parse.

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 small update tool, the description covers the essential behavior, use case, and return. However, it omits explanation of the base_rev parameter and doesn't clarify potential error or conflict behavior. Given the simple parameter set and lack of output schema, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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. It explains 'patch' well, including the partial merge and the special replacement of 'options'/'parts', but does not describe page_id or base_rev at all. This is a notable gap for a required and an optional parameter.

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 'Change ONE element in place without re-sending the whole document,' which uses a specific verb (change), a clear resource (element), and a scope qualifier (ONE, in place). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like add_element or patch_canvas, which target the whole canvas.

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?

It provides clear context: 'The cheap edit path for a big canvas: change a precision, a colour, a location, one box.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., versus patch_canvas). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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