Update a Part

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

No annotations provided; the description fully discloses the write pipeline (backup→modify→validate→level.apply→level.save.file), auto rollback on failure, partial update behavior, and property types. This is highly informative for an agent.

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 concise with 4-5 sentences, each adding distinct value. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently covers purpose, pipeline, partial update, and property examples.

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 no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., success/updated object). While it covers pipeline, partial update, and property scope, the missing output information slightly reduces completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by listing example properties (Size, CFrame, etc.) and clarifying that guid comes from studio_browse, which aids selection beyond the schema.

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 it modifies the name/properties of an existing part, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like studio_create_part and studio_delete by focusing on updating existing parts.

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 context by linking guid to studio_browse and explaining partial update behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like studio_create_part or studio_delete for creation/deletion scenarios.

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