update_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses shallow merge vs. replace, null-key removal, and validation for modeled types. However, it omits error handling on validation failure, permission requirements, or reversibility, leaving notable behavioral gaps 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action (shallow merge/full replace). The second sentence adds an important validation caveat without excess. No fluff, but it could be slightly more structured to separate the validation note from the core behavior.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main update semantics and the validation caveat. However, it does not mention what happens if validation fails, whether the operation is reversible, or any prerequisites beyond checking the type. These omissions leave the context incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 25% (only 'props' has a description). The description adds significant meaning by explaining shallow merge semantics, null removal, and validation implications for props and mode. It does not elaborate on planId and nodeId, but those are self-explanatory identifiers.

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 verb (update) and resource (element's props) and specifies the merge/replace modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling add_* and rename_element tools by focusing on modifying existing element props, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 a precondition ('check the type first via get_test_plan') for validation, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adding a new element), so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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