Modify Object

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk and non-idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new operational context — background execution without activating Illustrator and no Computer Use invocation — but does not disclose what is destroyed or how partial failures behave.

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 purpose, with no wasted wording. The execution-mode clause is secondary but relevant enough to justify its place for a destructive tool.

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 broad mutation tool with fully documented parameters and clear destructive annotations, the essentials are recoverable from structured fields. The description is nonetheless thin on when to prefer it over other mutating siblings and on failure/mutation scope, which matters given the many parallel mutation tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents uuid, the nested property object (fill, stroke, rotation_mode, etc.), and coordinate_system semantics thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Modify properties of an existing object" gives a specific verb and resource, so the agent knows this is an in-place mutation of an existing object rather than a creation or deletion. However, it does not differentiate from siblings that also mutate object attributes (replace_color, move_to_layer, apply_graphic_style, set_z_order), leaving the agent to guess which mutation path applies.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g., the object must already exist, how to obtain the uuid, that find_objects or get_selection should precede it). The second sentence addresses execution mode, not usage conditions.

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