sketchwright_update_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond stating that it updates incrementally and regenerates the scene, it says nothing about how patches are applied (atomic vs partial failure), what 'overwrite' destroys, whether output_path overwrites existing files, or whether permissions/validation are required before a mutation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the operation and its supported edits packed into a parenthetical; there is no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with nested object schemas, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, a single sentence is inadequate. The output schema covers return values, but patch format, overwrite/regeneration semantics, and output_path behavior are all missing.

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 0% and two required parameters are free-form nested objects, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical clarifies patch operations, which helps, but 'overwrite', 'output_path', and 'generate_scene' get no explanation at all, leaving three of five parameters opaque.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Incrementally update an existing diagram specification') and enumerates the operations it supports (add/remove/rename nodes, add/remove edges), which implicitly separates it from sketchwright_create_diagram. However, it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts create-vs-update, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

'Incrementally update an existing diagram' implies you should use this rather than recreating a diagram, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g. validate before/after, or layout after) is stated. The distinction from create_diagram is inferable but not spelled out.

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