Update elements

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: the whole batch collapses into one undo step, and step badges resize via width or style.fontSize rather than width/height. It stops short of saying what happens on an unknown id or a partial-failure batch.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its full field list, then a single special-case clause. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never says what is returned (updated items? count? nothing) or how failures on individual ids are reported for a batch of up to 200. For an atomic multi-element mutation, that gap matters more than the internal detail that is present.

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 coverage is 67%, with tabId and relativeTo documented inline. The description does add genuine meaning beyond the schema: rotation is in degrees, and width/fontSize behave specially on step badges. But it says nothing about the 200-item batch cap, id sourcing, or interaction between relativeTo coordinates and x/y.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Change existing elements by id") and enumerates the exact mutation surface: move, resize, rotate, text, restyle. The word "existing" plus "by id" cleanly separates it from the many snipaya_add_* siblings, which create new elements.

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 (operate on elements you already have ids for) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of snipaya_select or snipaya_arrange, which also reposition/style existing elements. Nothing tells the agent where ids must come from, even though snipaya_get_canvas is the obvious source.

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