update_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important partial-update behavior: only provided fields are changed, implying other properties remain untouched. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, units for dimensions, or what happens when null values are supplied, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the important partial-update caveat. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits at least one parameter ('page') and does not clarify units or null behavior. It is reasonably complete for the common use case but leaves notable gaps for an agent needing precise invocation.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It maps 'text' to the text parameter, 'position (center, inches)' to x/y, and 'size' to width_in/height_in, adding some unit and intent context. However, it does not explain the 'page' parameter or the null/default semantics, leaving part of the parameter set undocumented.

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 identifies the target resource ('a shape') and the specific actions: changing text, position (center, inches), or size. It goes beyond the tool name by enumerating updatable fields, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from sibling shape-related tools like delete_shapes or style_shape.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as drop_shape, style_shape, or delete_shapes. The only implicit usage signal is 'Only the provided fields are changed,' which suggests incremental updates but does not state when this tool is appropriate or when a sibling should be used.

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