Modify property definitions

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: one undo step, option identity preservation so element values survive, constraints on built-in/value type, and the exact return shape. Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/readOnly=false; description aligns and elaborates.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then return shape. Dense but no wasted 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?

For a complex, destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers operations, constraints, and return format. It omits minor schema-level details like maximum counts but is otherwise 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, so the description helps by summarizing the modifiable aspects (rename, group, description, options, defaults, availability) and clarifying availability modes. However, undoName is not mentioned and the schema already describes most parameters in detail, so it adds only moderate value.

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 and resource: 'Changes user-defined properties', and enumerates the aspects that can be modified. It does not name sibling tools like create_property_definitions or delete_property_definitions, so it only partially distinguishes from siblings, but the scope is clear.

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 a clear when-not and alternative: built-in properties and value type cannot be changed, so delete and recreate instead. It does not explicitly state positive when-to-use versus create_property_definitions, but the context is clear.

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