edit_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions that the tool edits an object and returns a success/failure message along with a screenshot, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or constraints, making it minimally adequate.

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 relatively concise with five sentences. It front-loads the purpose and includes argument and return descriptions. However, the second sentence could be tighter without losing clarity.

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 the complexity (3 params, nested object), the description is lacking. It does not explain what kinds of properties can be edited, mention prerequisites (e.g., document and object must exist), or provide usage examples. The output schema exists but no details are given, though the description mentions the return format.

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 add meaning. It lists three parameters but only repeats their names without providing additional semantic context or examples. The description for obj_properties is vague ('The properties of the object to edit'), failing to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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?

Describes editing an object in FreeCAD, which is clear. Distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'create_object' by stating it is used when create_object cannot handle creation, thereby differentiating its purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (when create_object cannot handle object creation), providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternatives beyond this sibling.

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