update_element

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that it mutates. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether updating is partial (only provided properties change), whether null clears fields, or what happens if the element does not exist. Given the sparse description, the agent must rely on the schema for these nuances. The description is consistent with annotations but adds minimal value.

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 wasted words. It clearly communicates the action and target. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool has a complex schema with nested properties and an output schema, and the description is very brief. While the schema carries detailed parameter semantics and annotations indicate destructive behavior, the description does not explain the partial-update semantics (unchanged properties remain) or that certain fields apply only to specific element types. An agent would need to read the schema carefully. For a mutation tool with this complexity, the description could provide more context, making it adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100% – each parameter (elementId, name, defaultFlow, and the properties object) already has a detailed description in the schema, including notes on clearing fields and restrictions. The tool description itself adds no semantic information about parameters, so it does not compensate beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('properties of an element in the current diagram'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element, delete_element, and add_* tools. The mention of 'current diagram' adds context. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as save (which persists the whole diagram) or get_element (to read). Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no directing of the agent to consider alternatives or exclusions. It is acceptable but not explicit.

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