update_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Update' but does not disclose whether omitted fields remain unchanged, whether null values clear properties, what permissions are required, or whether changes are reversible—important gaps for a 16-parameter mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase maps to a real capability of the tool, and nothing is buried or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin: it omits partial-update semantics, null handling, permission requirements, and parameter-level guidance.

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%, and the description only groups fields into broad categories (content, style, position, parent) without explaining individual parameters. It does not clarify color format, font family values, coordinate units, or the meaning of nullable defaults, leaving most of the 16 parameters semantically opaque.

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 verb and resource ('Update a text item') and enumerates the affected dimensions: content, style, position, and parent. It clearly distinguishes this from creating text, though it does not name siblings like update_shape or update_card that could also mutate visual 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_text or other update tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that the target text item already exists, which an agent must infer.

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