edit_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a message and screenshot, and gives parameter-specific behavior (including token-saving advice for include_screenshot). However, it does not mention any side effects, reversibility, or required permissions for editing an object, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 structured with a purpose statement, usage note, Args list, and Returns section. It is concise yet detailed, with no filler. The token-saving tip adds operational value without unnecessary length.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, nested obj_properties, enum for view_name, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: all parameters are explained, return type is specified, and usage notes are included. It lacks detailed structure for obj_properties, but that is domain-specific.

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?

The description explains all five parameters in plain language, including defaults and usage guidance (e.g., 'Pick the view that best shows the change being made'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Edit an object in FreeCAD' with a specific verb and resource. It also contrasts with create_object, but the phrase 'cannot handle the object creation' makes the relationship between editing and creating somewhat ambiguous, slightly diminishing sibling differentiation.

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?

It explicitly states 'This tool is used when the create_object tool cannot handle the object creation' and provides guidance for include_screenshot (set False for intermediate steps to save tokens). No other alternatives are mentioned, but this is sufficient.

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