edit_object

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only passed properties are touched (partial update), documents acceptable value formats for complex parameters, and clarifies that view_properties targets ViewObject attributes. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or potential associated actions like recompute, but covers the main behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and key behavioral notes, then provides a structured list of value formats. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy. Despite being detailed, it remains well-organized 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?

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, so return values are not a concern. The description thoroughly explains the complex parameters, gives a usage precondition, and clarifies the scope of the operation. It omits some peripheral details (e.g., behavior when the object is not found, or whether a recompute is needed), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed format specifications for 'properties' (numbers, vectors, placement, rotation, links, colours) and 'view_properties' (ShapeColor, Transparency, DisplayMode, Visibility). However, it does not explain the semantics of 'name', 'label', or 'document', which are left to inference.

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 opens with 'Change properties of an existing object,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_object, move_object, and delete_object by focusing on altering properties of an existing object.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool (changing properties) and gives a useful precondition: 'Call get_object first if you are unsure which properties exist.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., move_object for position changes), though the purpose statement implicitly differentiates.

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