Modify existing screens in a Stitch project using natural language prompts. Provide the project ID, screen IDs, and edit instructions.
Edits one or more existing screens based on text instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Edit instructions. | |
| projectId | Yes | The Stitch project ID. | |
| screenIds | Yes | Screen IDs to edit. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation operation ('Edits') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to existing screen content. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it omits behavioral and usage details that would make it more informative.
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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and schema are sufficient to construct a basic call. However, the lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidance leaves clear gaps for a mutation tool that edits existing content.
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 the three parameters and their basic meanings. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond restating that editing is text-instruction-driven, which aligns with the baseline.
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 states a specific action ('Edits'), a clear resource ('existing screens'), and the input mode ('based on text instructions'). It differentiates from siblings like generate_screen_from_text by targeting existing screens, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions; the 'existing screens' wording only weakly implies when this tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.