edit_capsule_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Ordered partial-success operations' is a meaningful behavioral disclosure: it tells the agent that operations are applied in order and may partially succeed. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on partial failure (rollback? partial commit?), whether the operation is destructive, or what the output schema contains.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It earns its place, though it could add a bit more guidance without becoming bloated.

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 tool with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too thin. The agent has no idea what 'operations' should look like, what write_mode values exist, what graph_target requires, or what the output schema returns. The 'ordered partial-success' hint is useful but insufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'operations' implicitly and 'graph_target' via 'one exact Capsule instance graph'. The other 5 parameters (layout, debug_path, write_mode, focus_editor, layout_after_batch) are completely unexplained in both the description and the schema, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('one exact Capsule instance graph'), and adds a distinctive qualifier ('ordered partial-success operations') that hints at its transactional semantics. It is distinguishable from siblings like inspect_capsule_graph or layout_capsule_graph, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies this is the tool to use when editing a Capsule instance graph, and the 'ordered partial-success operations' phrase suggests a batch-edit context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on how it differs from edit_scene_nodes_graph or other edit tools.

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