modify_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses transactional behavior, per-element success/failure reporting, internal units, acceptance of true/false for Yes/No parameters, and that read-only/computed parameters fail explicitly. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose, including the explicit non-goals and unit conventions, with no superfluous content. The Args section restates schema clearly.

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, absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, transaction atomicity, failure reporting, unit handling, and exclusions, which is more than enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage and no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does: element_ids must be non-empty, parameters is a name-to-value object with a concrete example and notes on units and value types. This is sufficient for an arbitrary-object parameter, though not exhaustively detailed.

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 starts with 'Set instance parameters on existing elements, by element id,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes this from create, delete, and type-parameter tools by explicitly stating what it does NOT do.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Get element ids from get_selected_elements or get_current_view_elements first' and 'Use list_category_parameters to find out what parameter names a category actually has.' Also states exclusions (does not create elements, change type, edit type parameters) so the agent knows when not to use it.

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