Update a polygon layer's side count and rotation by layer ID to control its shape and orientation.
Update polygon-specific properties (sides, rotation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sides | No | Number of sides (3–100). | |
| layerId | Yes | ID of the polygon layer. | |
| rotation | No | Rotation in degrees (0–360). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say whether the change is destructive, whether the layer must be polygon-typed, or what happens to existing geometry. Only the two numeric property names are 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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing redundant is included.
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?
The parameter-level contract is fully covered by schema, but for an un-annotated mutation tool the description should at least state the layer-type prerequisite and mutation behavior. It is adequate for a simple setter but leaves meaningful behavioral context unstated.
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%, so the schema already documents layerId, sides (3–100), and rotation (0–360). The description adds only marginal paraphrase of sides and rotation and omits layerId entirely, making this a baseline case.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('polygon-specific properties'), and identifies the two editable fields (sides, rotation). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like design_add_shape or design_set_shape_style, so the agent must infer scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus shape/style/transform siblings, and no prerequisites such as 'the layer must already be a polygon'. Usage is only implied by the word 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.