Update Surface Element

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing merge vs replace behavior and the response `ignored` list for non-applicable fields. Annotations already signal non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description provides concrete update behavior without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with clear structure: what it does, merge vs replace, and ignored fields. No filler or redundant restatement of schema defaults.

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 30-parameter tool, the description covers the core update semantics (merge/replace, ignored fields) and benefits from having an output schema. It doesn't enumerate all params, but the schema already does; the description adds the behavioral glue needed to use the tool 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameters by grouping x/y/width/height as mergeable and text/label/title as wholesale replacements, and explains type-specific field handling via the ignored list. This adds cross-parameter meaning but individual param details remain in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Partially update a surface element by id'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like add_surface_element, delete_surface_element, and list_surface_elements. It also accurately describes merge vs replace semantics, removing ambiguity about partial updates.

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?

The description implies usage context by defining partial update semantics (merge xywh, replace text/label/title) and noting type-inapplicable fields are ignored. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, relying on the sibling tool list and tool name to differentiate.

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