Modify dimensions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: 'in one undo step' (undo batching), the partial-update contract ('only the given fields change and only fields of the dimension's type apply'), and the return shape [{guid, ...summary} | {error}].

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?

Front-loads the core action and the partial-update contract, then organizes the long field enumeration by dimension type rather than listing fields arbitrarily. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the field list slightly overlaps the schema but earns its place through type applicability.

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, high-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers undo semantics, partial-update behavior, type-specific field applicability, a prerequisite lookup tool, and the return format. Only the absence of explicit when-to-use routing against siblings leaves a minor gap.

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 schema description coverage at 50%, the schema already documents many nested fields in rich detail. The description compensates by grouping fields by dimension type (Linear/Level/Radial/Angle/Common), which the flat schema does not express, and by flagging which field is the authoritative one per type (e.g. pointTexts vs points[].text, static vs level).

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+resource ('Changes existing dimensions') and then enumerates exactly which field families each dimension type accepts (Linear, Level, Radial, Angle, Common). An agent can distinguish this from create_dimensions, create_angle_dimensions, dimension_walls, and modify_elements without opening any schema.

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 ('Changes existing dimensions', 'Read the current values with get_element_details') but never states when to prefer this over siblings such as modify_elements or the create_* dimension tools, nor any precondition or exclusion. Context is present but guidance is only implied.

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