update_section_property

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

Annotations already signal mutation and non-destructiveness, and the description adds specific behavioral details: it overwrites stored section properties, accepts up to 29 values in a fixed order, and interprets side_i as I-end/J-end for tapered sections. It does not describe error cases or side effects, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded, and the Args section is cleanly structured. The bilingual repetition of the same statements adds minor redundancy, but the description remains compact and scannable.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is modified, which parameters matter, and the meaning of the tricky side_i flag. Missing details such as the complete property list and failure behavior do not undermine basic call correctness, but would improve 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter-documentation burden. It explains index as a section ID, side_i as a tapered-section end selector, and sec_property as an ordered list of up to 29 values with six examples. The main gap is not enumerating the full 29-property order.

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 action ('directly modify'), a specific resource ('calculated properties of a section'), and concrete examples (Area, Ix, Iy, Iz). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_section_property by emphasizing manual override of auto-calculated values after creation.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use after section creation for fine-tuning or correcting auto-calculated values, which implies a distinction from calculation/creation tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, stopping 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.