Edit Behavioural Element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: mutation semantics, model-version creation, ir_hash change and its effect on confirmations, 422 for invalid results, 409 when a build holds the model, 403 with escalation_id parking the edit for a person, and the no-retry instruction. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the action ('Replace, or add, one element') then layers error and delegation behavior. Dense but every sentence conveys a distinct behavioral fact; only the density keeps it from a 5.

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?

Covers mutation consequences, validity and build-locking error paths, authorization/escalation flow, follow-up confirmation, and the return shape. An output schema exists, so the brief note on the return is a bonus rather than a gap. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description confirms the element is stored as written and must yield a valid model, but adds little about model_id, collection, or server_version beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and scope: 'Replace, or add, one element of a model's behavioural model.' That single-element surgical edit is clearly distinguished from whole-model operations among siblings like extract_behavioural_model and confirm_behavioural_model, which it names.

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?

Provides strong operational context: the required follow-up of 'confirm_behavioural_model' after the ir_hash change, and explicit handling for the 403 case ('Do not retry... report the escalation_id and poll list_proposals'). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other edit/add siblings such as add_asset, so it stops short of a 5.

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