edit_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior — read-or-write semantics, unknown keys becoming custom properties, and the mass override rationale — but does not clarify whether writes replace or merge existing values, permissions required, or side effects beyond feeding the BOM/title block.

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 core read/set purpose and property list, then moves into structured Args. It is mostly efficient, though 'manage_materials lists them' is repeated across the material and mass_kg entries.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the main call semantics, custom-property behavior, material sourcing, and mass override; the main remaining gap is mutation/overwrite behavior, which matters for a tool with no annotations.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example values object, explains that unknown keys become custom properties, specifies material naming and how to list materials, and explains mass_kg override behavior; only 'instance' is left entirely to the schema's own description.

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 a specific verb pair ('Read — and optionally set') and resource ('active document's iProperties') and enumerates the properties affected. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like manage_parameters or manage_documents, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for use: these properties feed the BOM and drawing title block, and it names manage_materials for listing material names. The mass_kg override is tied to a concrete scenario (surface-only vendor models). It lacks explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison to other property/parameter tools.

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