Update mockup config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool performs a partial merge, lists accepted types and available keys, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error states, or idempotency. It covers basic behavioral traits but lacks depth.

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 purpose, then breaks down dial keys into categories. It is longer than necessary but structured efficiently for complex information. Every sentence adds value, though some repetition could be trimmed.

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 no output schema and complex input (2 parameters with nested object), the description covers available keys and update behavior well. However, it omits error handling (e.g., invalid projectId), return value, and confirmation of success. This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent.

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?

The schema has 50% coverage (descriptions for both parameters, but dials is generic). The description adds significant semantic detail: type explanations (e.g., 'numbers are degrees/units/0-1 strengths'), a comprehensive list of dial keys organized by category, and examples. This compensates well for the schema brevity.

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 tool merges dial values into a project's configuration to change the mockup appearance. It specifies the resource (project configuration) and verb (merge/update), and is distinct from sibling tools that create, delete, or apply templates.

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 implies usage by stating 'only the keys you pass are changed; everything else is preserved,' which guides when to use it for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or provide scenarios for when not to use it.

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