Edit original constant and parameter declarations

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent. The description adds genuine context beyond them: what is preserved (native IDs, aliases, geometry, fonts), that a recoverable backup exists, and that a compiler/simulator must validate the result. It does not detail failure/rollback behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the edit scope followed by preservation guarantees and preconditions. Every sentence contributes; wording is dense but not padded.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: preservation semantics, backup/recoverability, and the requirement for a fresh hash and compiler validation. It is largely complete, though it could state what happens on validation failure.

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 100%, so both parameters and nested edit fields are already documented. The description reinforces 'requires both name and value' and 'fresh hash' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline-3 case.

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+resource ('Edit... existing... CONSTANT/PARAM name/value pair') and scopes it tightly with 'only an existing unambiguous native'. The 'only existing' qualifier implicitly contrasts with creation siblings like gdf_create/gdf_declarations, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 clear usage constraints: only existing, unambiguous, native declarations, and mandates both name and value plus a fresh hash. It does not explicitly name what tool to use instead for creating or deleting declarations, so the when-not side is implied rather than enumerated.

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