update_element_beta

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds useful domain context by explaining that beta angle controls local axis orientation, but it does not disclose side effects, limitations, or what happens to existing orientation settings. It is adequate for a simple setter but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 well-organized with a summary, domain explanation, Args section, and example. The bilingual content adds some redundancy but remains compact and useful. Every section contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines both parameters, gives supported types, units, and a concrete example. It does not describe error behavior or effects on existing orientations, but those are not essential for basic invocation.

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%, so the description fully carries the parameter documentation burden. It explains that ids supports int, list, or range string ('1to10'), and that beta is in degrees. The example further clarifies usage, making both parameters actionable despite the minimal schema.

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 the verb and resource: 'Change the beta angle of one or more elements.' It also explains what beta angle controls (local axis orientation), distinguishing this tool from generic element updates like update_element, update_element_section, or update_element_material. The scope is unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied by the description: use this tool when you need to modify element beta angles. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use this tool, such as when updating other element properties like section, material, or nodes.

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