Edit Geometry

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that edits happen in place, the handle is preserved, and omitted arguments leave values unchanged. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations and is consistent with them.

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?

Three terse lines: purpose, per-type parameter mapping, and preservation rule. Every sentence carries information and it is front-loaded.

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 10-parameter, mid-complexity tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential cross-parameter constraints and omit behavior. It doesn't explicitly address invalid parameter/entity-type combinations (e.g., passing x1 for CIRCLE), but that is reasonably inferable from the per-type mapping.

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 covers 100% with individual descriptions, but the description adds entity-type parameter groups (CIRCLE/LINE/ARC) and the 'left out is unchanged' semantics that the null defaults alone don't convey. That meaningfully augments 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?

States a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('defining geometry of an existing entity'), and clarifies scope with 'in place (no delete/recreate)'. This distinguishes it from entity_create_* and other modify tools such as entity_mirror/entity_trim, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Shows it applies to existing entities and explicitly excludes delete/recreate, and the per-entity parameter mapping guides correct use. It doesn't name sibling alternatives (e.g., entity_create_line vs this) nor give explicit when-not conditions beyond the delete/recreate exclusion, but the context is clear enough.

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