Modify morphs

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail beyond them: that box/extrusion/mesh completely replaces the body, that only given fields change (partial update), that all changes occur in one undo step, and the exact return format ([{guid} | {error}] in input order). This covers what gets destroyed and how failures are surfaced.

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-loaded with the core action and undo-step behavior, followed by a dense but structured list of capabilities and a concise return-format sentence. The first sentence is long and could be broken up, but every clause adds useful information with no filler.

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 extremely rich input schema (100% description coverage) and safety annotations, the description supplies what structured data cannot: partial-update semantics, whole-body replacement behavior, undo-step granularity, and return format. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, and no output schema exists to require further explanation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description groups some parameters conceptually (offset, level, faceSurface, buildingMaterial, etc.) but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 ('Changes') and resource ('existing morphs'), enumerates the scope of changes, and explicitly references the sibling tool get_morph_geometry for round-tripping geometry. An agent can clearly distinguish this from create_morphs or get_morph_geometry without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides clear context: modify existing morphs in one undo step, with a concrete usage pattern (edit output of get_morph_geometry and send it back). However, it does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., modify_elements for generic elements), so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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