Update BIM Level

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and description adds that 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update). This adds value beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. Given the annotations are minimal, the description provides adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 compact with 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It includes a usage hint, return value, required params, and API context. The API endpoint sentence is slightly extraneous for an AI agent but not harmful. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema and a nested bim_level object that is not explained beyond 'bIM Level Item object'. The description mentions returns the modified object but does not detail the structure. Given schema coverage is high for the other parameters, the description is adequate but lacks depth for the nested object, which limits how well an agent can use this tool without additional knowledge.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description repeats that id, project_id, bim_level are required but does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. The bim_level parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties, and the description does not hint at its structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 tool updates a BIM Level item and returns the modified object. It uses specific verb and resource, which makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bim_level' or 'delete_bim_level', which would earn a 5.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing BIM records' implying when to use, and lists required parameters. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, such as 'create_bim_level' for new records. The usage context is clear but incomplete.

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