Write element properties

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: it explains the default dry-run behavior, that it returns planned changes (current -> new), and which flag commits. This is valuable safety-relevant behavior not visible from the schema or annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences, with the most important safety behavior (dry-run by default) front-loaded. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the input side is under-specified. The agent knows the tool's intent and dry-run mechanism, but the required 'changes' structure and the optional 'port' semantics are missing. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect calls.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains dry_run well, but the required 'changes' parameter is left completely underspecified—an array of objects with arbitrary additional properties—and 'port' is not explained at all. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid request payload from this definition.

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 operation: 'Write element property values.' It identifies the resource (element properties) and the action (writing/setting), and the dry-run behavior distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like get_element_data. This is specific enough for an agent to select the right category of tool.

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 clear operational guidance: it explicitly states that the tool runs in dry-run mode by default and that dry_run=false commits changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the write-vs-read distinction from sibling tools is reasonably obvious.

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