update_sketch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not explain whether array/data fields replace or merge, whether preview opens a browser or generates HTML, what permissions are required, or whether changes are reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler makes the definition concise. It is arguably too sparse for a 14-parameter mutation tool, and the 'or' list can understate the possibility of combined updates.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 14 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits seed, data sources, dataChannels, skills, themes, preview, philosophy, and replacement semantics, leaving important behavioral context to inference despite the rich schema.

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 100%, so all 14 parameters, including nested data, canvas, colors, and dataChannels, are already documented. The description mentions only metadata, parameters, colors, and canvas, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update ... an existing sketch') and names four updatable areas, so the purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like set_parameters, set_colors, set_seed, or set_canvas_size, and the list omits many supported fields.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_parameters, set_colors, set_seed, set_canvas_size, update_algorithm, or fork_sketch. The agent must infer the choice entirely from the name and schema.

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