iterate_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ("refine") but does not specify whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or how the tool handles multiple iterations. The examples are non-destructive, but explicit security or side-effect info is missing.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes practical examples without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value and the structure is efficient.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and gives usage examples. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., updated screen object) or confirm that screen_id must come from generate_screen, which is noted only in the schema. A bit more context on how to use the result would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., "feedback" examples). The optional "name" parameter is described in both, but the description reinforces but does not significantly augment the schema.

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 tool refines an existing generated screen based on feedback, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_screen (creation) and get_screen (retrieval). The examples of feedback ("change color", "add a section") further clarify its purpose.

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 specifies that this tool is for follow-up edits after generation, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for new screens or non-generated screens) or mention prerequisites like valid screen_id from generate_screen.

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