更新已有实体的属性（位置、颜色、标签、缩放、可见性）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show | No | 是否显示 | |
| color | No | 新颜色（CSS 格式） | |
| label | No | 新标注文本 | |
| scale | No | 新缩放比例 | |
| entityId | Yes | 实体ID（addMarker/addPolyline 等返回的 entityId） | |
| position | No | 新位置坐标 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the specific set of updatable properties but does not disclose additional behavioral details like error handling, partial update semantics, or what happens if the entity doesn't exist. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.
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 concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose and scope. No redundant words or fluff.
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 an update tool with a well-defined schema and annotations, the description is sufficient to understand the operation. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists and for an update operation the return is often trivial. The main gap is lack of explicit error/edge-case behavior, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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 provides full descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the description's enumeration of properties adds little beyond the schema. It doesn't provide extra context about parameter formats, defaults, or interactions between parameters.
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 uses a specific verb '更新' (update) with a clear resource '已有实体' (existing entity), and enumerates the properties it can modify: position, color, label, scale, visibility. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling add/remove tools.
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 phrase '已有实体' (existing entity) implies this tool is for modifying existing entities, not creating or removing them, which helps differentiate from add* and remove* siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools share conceptual boundaries (e.g., addMarker vs addBillboard vs addLabel, addPolyline vs addCorridor vs addWall, flyTo vs setView), though descriptions clarify most cases. The overlap is notable given the large tool count.
All tools use lowerCamelCase with a consistent verb-first pattern (add*, load*, set*, remove*, update*). Some generic verbs like control and update are reused, but the naming is predictable and readable.
43 tools is well beyond the recommended range. Many add* functions for different primitive types could be consolidated into one entity-creation tool, reducing bloat and cognitive load without sacrificing capability.
The tool set offers strong coverage across entities, layers, camera controls, and animations. Minor gaps include lack of entity information retrieval and direct geometry re-editing, but core workflows are well supported.