html.update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about partial updates ('Only provided fields will be updated') and Designer mode behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, both of which add value: the first explains the core update behavior, and the second provides crucial Designer mode context. There's zero wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complexity (mutation tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the partial update behavior and Designer mode nuance well, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or system-wide effects. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing HTML component'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'html.create' or 'html.get' beyond the update action, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 context for when to use this tool ('In Designer mode, operates on currently selected screen') and references an alternative tool ('use screen.select first if needed'). It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other update tools like 'layout.update' or 'nodes.update', preventing a perfect score.

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