update_shape

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not say whether this is a partial patch (all fields default to null, which strongly suggests omitted fields are untouched, but that is never stated), whether item_id must point at a shape rather than any item, what reparenting via parent_frame_id does to coordinates, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of structured fields. It is efficiently written; the shortfall is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

With 16 parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and a mutation surface that touches geometry, styling, and hierarchy, a single sentence is not sufficient. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the behavioral and parameter gaps above remain unaddressed.

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 0% across 16 parameters. The description's grouping into content/style/position/parent maps loosely onto the field families, but it never clarifies the distinctions that actually trip agents up: color vs fill_color vs border_color, x/y units or coordinate origin, whether parent_frame_id reparents or embeds. Those ambiguities remain unresolved in both schema and prose.

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 gives a specific verb (update) plus a resource (shape) and enumerates the categories of changeable state: content, style, position, parent. That is enough to separate it from create_shape, update_text, and update_frame without opening the schema. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 indication of when to reach for this tool versus create_shape (replace) or update_item_position, and no prerequisites such as needing a shape-type item. The only implied guidance is that this is for existing shapes, which the agent must infer from the verb.

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