update_element

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

The annotations are all false and don't characterize behavior richly, so the description has to carry some burden. It adds useful facts: new_id=-1 keeps the old ID, ele_type uses a 1-4 numeric mapping, and beta_angle is in degrees. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when changing topology-related fields like node_i/node_j, whether invalid IDs cause errors, or whether repeated identical updates are safe. It is neither misleading nor contradictory, but it communicates parameter mechanics more than side effects.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by a clean Args block in a consistent format and a compact example. The bilingual text adds some length but serves the likely mixed-language user context, and there is no filler.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema-level descriptions, the text does a strong job of making the tool callable. The main gaps are that it never explicitly states 'omitted optional arguments leave that property unchanged' (only implied by defaults) and it doesn't mention the specialized sibling alternatives. These are moderate omissions for a multi-purpose mutation tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates. Every parameter is given a human-readable explanation, the ele_type enum values are spelled out, beta_angle units are stated, and the -1 default behavior of new_id is explicit. The example also demonstrates the intended partial-update calling pattern.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Modify an existing element's properties' and lists what properties can be touched, so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the several specialized siblings (update_element_material, update_element_section, update_element_beta, update_element_nodes), so the generic vs. specific choice is left ambiguous.

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?

The description provides an example call but no guidance on when to use this generic update_element versus the specialized update_element_* siblings. It never says 'use this to change multiple properties at once' or 'use update_element_material for material-only changes'. The intended usage must be inferred from the parameter list.

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