ui_manage

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity ('Atomically build'), validation ('Validates everything before mutating'), error conditions ('which errors'), and compatibility aliases for parameters. Could not mention return values, but an output schema 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?

Clearly structured with a one-line summary followed by bulleted ops with signatures and examples. Every sentence provides necessary detail (e.g., margin=0, theme_override_constants example) with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Covering four distinct operations with constraints, pitfalls, and integration notes, the description is thorough for a UI authoring tool. It addresses canonical call shape and session_id handling, and the output schema likely covers return specifics. Minimal gaps for its complexity.

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?

The schema's params object is generic (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by documenting each operation's parameters with names, types, defaults, enums, and examples. For instance, set_anchor_preset lists all preset values and resize_mode options.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'UI / Control authoring (HUD, menus, layouts, vector decoration).' It enumerates four distinct operations (set_anchor_preset, set_text, build_layout, draw_recipe) with concrete details, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like node_manage or scene_manage.

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 strong contextual guidance for specific operations, e.g., the note that CanvasLayer is not a Control and to apply presets to a Control child, and the warning about theme_override_constants vs direct properties. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the UI-specific scope is clear.

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