objects_patch

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics (partial patch of the given properties only, label is the display name), but says nothing about failure/atomicity behavior across up to 500 objects or whether omitted properties are preserved.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the operation stated first and the field-discovery pointer immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, non-idempotent mutation with an arbitrary nested payload property bag, the description covers field discovery but omits multi-object failure semantics and there is no output schema to explain results. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33% and the nested `properties` bag is untyped with no description in the schema. The description compensates well by pointing to setprops and command_describe and by disambiguating `label`, while `objects` and `table_id` are already documented in the schema.

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 (patch) plus the resource and the field categories affected (appearance/physics/name), which implicitly separates it from siblings like objects_move, objects_lock and objects_remove. It stops short of naming or excluding those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Properties follow setprops; use command_describe for exact fields" gives concrete routing for field discovery, which is the main ambiguity here. However, there is no guidance on when to patch versus spawn/move objects, and no mention of prerequisites for the destructive operation.

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