tqs_building_edit

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by detailing the dry_run default, the reporting of old/new values, the commit behavior, and the backup as EDIFICIO.BAK. This adds substantial context about what happens during mutation, matching the destructive hint.

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 primary action, and provides essential detail without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, covering the core function and the crucial dry-run/commit safety mechanism.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the key context: what changes, how to control the write, and the backup behavior. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a focused edit tool, the essentials are present. Slight deduction for missing explicit guidance on input structure and potential failure modes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It explains the 'dry_run' parameter well, including default and behavior, and implies 'changes' and 'floors' are the properties to modify. However, it does not describe the structure or expected format for these parameters, leaving gaps.

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 function: 'Change building properties and save.' This uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('building properties'), distinguishing it from sibling read/list tools like tqs_building_read and tqs_list_buildings. The mention of dry_run further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage for editing building properties but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. The context suggests it is for modifications, but explicit guidance is missing.

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