Update Component Properties

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

The description reveals merge semantics and real-time updates, which go beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful context about the update behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear first sentence, argument list, and an example. It wastes no words.

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 simple update tool with two parameters, the description covers usage, merge behavior, and real-time effects. Without an output schema, it might be further improved by stating return values, but the essentials are 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 descriptions already cover both parameters, but the description adds value by specifying the source of the ID and clarifying that props merge with existing properties. The example illustrates concrete property names.

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 updates properties of an existing component on the canvas, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like design_add_component by focusing on existing components.

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 implies usage on existing components by requiring an ID from design_add_component response. It provides context for when to use it but does not explicitly call out alternatives or exclusions.

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