edit_selected_prop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: edits propagate to the shared recipe covering all instances, a strict single-selection precondition, and the queued-inspection resume path. It stops short of stating reversibility, permissions, or what happens to unmentioned fields.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tight precondition and edge-case notes. Three short sentences with no filler, though the last sentence about imported static models is slightly tangential to the primary recipe-edit 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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions and propagation scope but leaves the parameter payloads and expected result under-described. Adequate, not complete.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It touches most of them in passing ('named recipe part', 'geometry/material edits and locks', 'inspection_request_id'), but 'changes' and the lock semantics are only implied and no formats or valid values are given.

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 and resource ('edit a named recipe part') and adds a distinguishing scope mechanism ('Resolve the engine selection... without typing an asset ID'), which separates it from ID-taking siblings like edit_prop_part. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the selection-based entry point makes the intent clear.

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 the key precondition ('Requires exactly one selected managed asset') and a recovery path ('If inspection is queued, resume with inspection_request_id'). It never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over edit_prop_part or edit_imported_part, so routing is left to inference.

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