edit_prop_part

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavioral context: lock semantics (retains saved geometry/material, must unlock before editing locked properties), coordinate frame (Blender Z-up), and pivot conventions differing between recipes and imported parts. It omits permissions, reversibility/undo behavior, and failure modes.

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-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by a dense but well-organized list of change types and coordinate/lock caveats. Minor waste from a mid-sentence line break, but every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key facts an agent needs: what can be changed, units, coordinate conventions, and lock behavior. Remaining gaps (return value, error behavior) are less critical given no output schema exists.

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: it documents the opaque 'changes' object fields (scale XYZ, offset XYZ in meters, rotation XYZ in degrees, color linear RGB, material enum values, roughness, wear) and clarifies lock_geometry/lock_material semantics. 'part' is contextualized via inspect_asset, though asset_id remains undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (edit/lock) on a specific resource (one named part of a recipe or imported model) and points to inspect_asset for enumerating parts. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like edit_imported_part or edit_selected_prop.

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?

It gives some routing guidance (inspect_asset lists parts) and a conditional instruction (explicitly unlock before changing locked properties), which implies how to use locking. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance against the many closely named sibling edit tools.

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