element_update

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting the PUT method, partial update nature, and flat body structure. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent. It does not contradict annotations.

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 very concise with three sentences, each providing essential information: the action, the partial update behavior, and the updatable fields with a constraint. No extraneous words.

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 the parameter count of 5 and no output schema, the description covers key points: updatable fields, partial update requirement, and required parameters. It could mention that 'values' replaces the entire hash, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward update tool.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying that 'site' is a required parameter and that 'element_id' must come from elements_list. It also clarifies the requirement that at least one of title, path, values is needed, which is not explicit in the schema.

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 clearly states the action 'Update an element', specifies the HTTP method (PUT), indicates it is a partial update, and lists updatable fields (title, path, values). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like element_create or element_delete.

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 description provides clear usage guidance: it is a partial update, so only supply fields to change, and at least one of the updatable fields besides element_id is required. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is adequate for basic usage.

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