Edit Hatch

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

The description discloses critical behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: omitted parameters are left alone, preventing accidental data loss, and the `changed` output indicates exactly which attributes changed. This is valuable context not available in the schema or annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause conveys essential information without fluff. The behavioral warning is concise and impactful.

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 an output schema, high parameter coverage, and a clear purpose. The description covers the key behavioral nuance (partially updating vs resetting), making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it safely.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds the crucial semantic that omitted parameters are preserved. This informs how defaults (null/empty) should be interpreted, which is not explicit in the 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 states 'Edit an existing hatch in place' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like entity_create_hatch or hatch_set_gradient. It also clarifies the scope ('in place').

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: editing an existing hatch. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so a user might not know when to choose this over related tools like hatch_set_gradient or entity_set_properties. The 'omitted parameters left alone' note gives usage guidance for the tool's semantics.

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