modify_scad_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the module's body is replaced entirely, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., module must exist), error handling, or side effects. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 key action, followed by a clear docstring. It is concise and well-structured, with no unnecessary words.

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 covers purpose and parameters, but lacks information about return value (e.g., does it return modified code?) and error conditions (e.g., module not found).Given the 3 params and no output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 includes a docstring explaining each parameter (scad_code, module_name, new_module_code) with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which has no descriptions. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 verb 'replace' and the resource 'module in OpenSCAD code'. It provides a specific action: 'Finds the named module and replaces its body entirely.' This distinguishes it from many sibling tools, but does not explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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 mentions 'Use for major modifications like redesigning a component', implying when to use it, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It gives some context but lacks exclusions.

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