shape_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies mutation. It does not disclose what gets changed, whether unspecified properties are preserved, required permissions, or any return/confirmation behavior. Only the bare fact of mutation is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a useful way, carrying no structure for the agent to work with.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and almost no schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. Missing are how the target is located (pageIndex/itemIndex), which properties are mutable, and any confirmation of effect.

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 9% (only document_id is documented) across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and adds nothing. It never mentions x/y/width/height, fill/stroke color, cornerRadius, or how pageIndex/itemIndex identify the target shape, leaving the bulk of the interface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('properties of an existing shape'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation tools like shape_create. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling shape/transform tools (shape_delete, transform_scale, transform_rotate) that also act on existing shapes.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as transform_scale/transform_rotate for geometry changes or color_apply for fills. The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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