update_text_box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a text box' with no information about whether it performs a partial or full replacement, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the widget does not exist, or any side effects. This is highly opaque.

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 short sentence, which is front-loaded but under-specifies the tool. It conveys only the general purpose and omits crucial details, making it more under-specification than concise in a useful way.

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 7 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is grossly inadequate. It provides no information about required parameters, parameter semantics, behavior, or expected outcomes, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 only 29% (only muralId and widgetId have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Undocumented parameters like x, y, text, width, and height gain no meaning beyond their names, which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 specific action ('Update') and resource ('a text box'), with the scope 'on a mural'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_text_boxes (create vs update) and update_sticky_note/update_shape (different widget types).

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need to modify an existing text box widget. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like create_text_boxes for new text boxes, or how it differs from updating other widget types. No clear exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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