update_shape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only that the operation updates a shape, implying mutation, but omits side effects (e.g., overwriting vs. merging), required permissions, or effects on existing properties. This is a significant gap 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, clear sentence that front-loads the essential verb and object. It is appropriately concise, containing no unnecessary words or redundancies, and is easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely under-specified. It lacks information about return values, parameter behavior, prerequisites, and side effects, making it inadequate for guiding an agent 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?

The input schema has a low description coverage (38%), with only muralId, widgetId, and backgroundColor described. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, leaving five parameters (x, y, text, width, height) without any explanation of their semantics, units, or behavior. The description fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 'Update a shape on a mural' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (shape on a mural), matching the tool name with a slight clarification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_sticky_note or create_shapes, though the resource type is implied.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this when updating shapes' or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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