edit_annotation

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses a side effect not visible in the schema: editing a model dimension persists changes in the part and the result reports changes_part. However, it does not state permissions, reversibility, or the full return shape, leaving meaningful gaps 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 core action and delete alternative are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter notes follow in compact clauses. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every clause carries parameter or behavioral information that earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the resource, gives an id example, covers most parameters, and notes the changes_part result. Return format is only partially hinted at, keeping it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains prefix/suffix semantics (solidWorks symbol replacement with '4X R' example), precision=decimals, tolerance=[upper,lower] mm, fit='H7', text, at=[x,y] sheet mm, and diametric=True. Only a couple of params (annotation_id usage nuances, exact tolerance ordering) are lightly covered, but overall it fills the schema gap well.

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 ('Change an annotation by id') with a concrete id example ('RD3@Drawing View1') and the delete alternative. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_dimension/add_note (which create) and set_dimension, though it does not explicitly name its closest sibling to contrast with.

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?

Implies usage by explaining how to set each field and offering delete=True as the removal path, but does not state when to use this versus set_dimension, add_dimension, or import_dimensions. The when-to-use context is inferred rather than explicit.

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