Update text, icons or colors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that this is a mutation. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: markdown rendering behavior for text, color application to text/icons/shapes, and parallax depth semantics including the negative-value direction. It still leaves gaps around partial-update behavior and what happens when an id is missing.

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 front-loaded with the core action, "Changes elements by id," and every clause adds relevant field-level meaning. It is a single dense sentence with multiple parentheticals, which is efficient but slightly run-on rather than optimally structured.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description covers the core update fields and their semantics well enough to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe return behavior, error handling for unknown ids, or whether updates are partial, but those gaps are relatively minor for this tool's primary usage.

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 50%: path and the nested markdown/parallax fields are documented in schema, while id, icon, text, and color are not. The description compensates by explaining that text is for text boxes and supports \n plus markdown formatting, icon is for icons, color uses #RRGGBB and applies to text/icons/shapes, and parallax uses a 0.3–0.7 range with negative values moving nearer.

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: "Changes elements by id." It also enumerates the updatable fields (text, icon, color, parallax), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as add_text or add_image, which keeps this from a 5.

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 phrase "Changes elements by id" implies this is for updating existing elements rather than adding new ones, which gives implicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus add_text, add_image, or other siblings, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions.

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