Edit property definitions

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

With destructiveHint=true already set, the description goes well beyond annotations: dry-run returns before/after plus warnings, GUIDs are preserved so element values survive except when removing an option (elements show <Undefined>) or availability, and it names the required 'Tapir build with UpdateClassificationItems'. This discloses side effects and prerequisites richly.

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 most decision-relevant facts (in-place scope, dry-run default) are front-loaded, followed by addressing rules and an example. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 destructive, three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, commit behavior, addressing syntax, side effects on element values, and the environment prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: dry_run semantics, full addressing grammar for 'Group/Name' vs GUID, availability 'System/Code' syntax with '/*', enum option addressing, and a concrete changes example. Only the shared 'port' param is left undocumented, a minor gap.

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 verb and resource ('Edit custom property DEFINITIONS in place') and immediately disambiguates scope with '(not element values)'. This cleanly separates it from siblings like set_element_data, edit_classifications, and import_definitions, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the default dry-run workflow ('pass dry_run=false to commit') and routes the agent to search_definitions for addressing. It does not explicitly contrast with import_definitions or state when NOT to use in-place editing versus a bulk import, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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