edit_screen

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, but it only states that the tool edits a screen and returns an ID and HTML. It does not reveal potential side effects, dependency on a generative model, or the irreversibility of the change, which are important 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 sentence that front-loads the action and efficiently conveys the return value. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and return value, and the schema accounts for all parameters, but the tool has no output schema or annotations. It omits context about model selection, device targeting, and the nature of the edit (regenerative vs. incremental), leaving some gaps for an agent invoking it.

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?

Since the schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds minimal additional meaning beyond clarifying that the edit is prompt-driven, which aligns with the existing 'prompt' description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') with a clear resource ('existing screen') and method ('using a text prompt'), which distinguishes it from generation tools like generate_screen. It also states the return value (updated screen ID and HTML), providing concrete expectations.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_screen or generate_variants. While 'existing screen' implies modification, it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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