update_design_element

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that type_id and name are required by the API and that passing current values preserves them, implying a partial update behavior. However, it does not mention return values, permission requirements, or side effects of re-parenting, leaving some uncertainty.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a concise list of operations, followed by essential usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaning without unnecessary 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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers core semantics, required fields, and a recommended pre-step. It lacks details on return values or error scenarios, but given the straightforward nature of the update, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by mapping operations to parameters: rename maps to name, edit documentation to description, re-parent to parent_id, and change type to type_id. It also clarifies the role of required fields. It doesn't explicitly explain project_id and element_id, but these are inferable from context.

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 opens with 'Update a design element' and enumerates specific operations (rename, edit documentation, re-parent, change type), making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_design_element or get_design_element.

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?

It instructs to call get_design_element first to read current values and explains that type_id and name must be passed with current values to preserve them. This provides clear context on prerequisite steps and how to avoid overwriting fields, though it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for similar actions.

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