edit_schedule_scheme

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is dry-run by default, never overwrites the input, writes to a specific location, and clarifies that the need for an Archicad connection depends on how properties are bound (GUID vs Group/Name). This is highly transparent.

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 detailed but not excessively verbose. It is logically structured, covering the main action, default behavior, output location, import instruction, and dependency on a live connection. Each sentence adds value.

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 description provides a solid overview of the tool's functionality, including key constraints and prerequisites. It lacks explicit explanations for all parameters but covers the core use case and edge conditions well enough for an agent to use the tool.

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 description explains the roles of 'path' and 'spec_path' indirectly, and mentions 'output' and 'dry_run' in behavior, but does not clarify 'port' or 'spec_id'. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the coverage is partial.

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's purpose: applying a YAML scheme spec to an exported schedule scheme XML, with specific actions like setting columns, retargeting bindings, and renaming. It distinguishes this editing operation from other tools in the sibling set.

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 explains the default behavior (dry-run) and output file naming, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide contextual usage conditions. The user must infer that this is for editing schedule schemes.

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