edit_imported_part

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it warns of the unlock prerequisite, states that untouched parts and engine instances retain identity, and sets expectations that a fused mesh is one part with no invented segmentation. It omits reversibility of locking and any rate/permission details.

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?

Front-loads the action, then layers constraints and caveats in short declarative lines. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; a minor tightening of the naming/grouping paragraph is possible.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies prerequisites, field semantics, replacement format constraints, and identity-preservation guarantees. Missing only explicit return/response behavior and lock/unlock reversal details.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: changes are defined as scale/offset/rotation XYZ in Blender Z-up plus linear color RGB, roughness and metallic; replacement_path is constrained to local GLB/glTF/FBX/BLEND fitted to part bounds; part/members semantics are explained. lock_geometry and lock_material are only implied by 'lock' and 'Unlock explicitly', leaving a small gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb set (group, edit, lock, replace) and a precise resource ('parts of an imported static model'), which separates it from edit_prop_part/edit_selected_prop by scope. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of 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?

Gives concrete operational context: inspect_asset.report.parts lists source parts, members groups existing named parts, and geometry/material must be unlocked explicitly before changes. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing, so not a 5.

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