Modify slabs

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that a new polygon replaces the whole shape and resets per-edge data, that unspecified fields are preserved, that invalid element types are rejected while valid items still run, and the return shape ([{guid}|{error}] in input order) plus that all edits form one undo step. This is exactly the destructive/mutation context the agent needs.

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 keeps everything in a tight block. The long field enumeration is dense and partially overlaps the already-complete schema, but it earns its place as a scannable overview of what is modifiable.

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 mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is preserved, validation/error behavior, return format and undo grouping. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it flags that polygon replaces the shape and resets per-edge data, that edge trims can be set slab-wide or per-edge via 'edges', and cross-references create_slabs for field definitions. The remaining parameter detail lives in the schema, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 slabs') and enumerates the exact field families it can modify (polygon, thickness, level, edge trims, surfaces, renovation status, etc.). An agent can immediately tell this apart from create_slabs, modify_roofs or modify_elements.

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?

Establishes clear context: it operates on existing slabs, only the supplied fields change, and 'Fields as in create_slabs' points to the companion tool for field semantics. It also states the precondition that each item must be a slab (checked first, others still run). However, it names no explicit alternative (e.g. the generic modify_elements) or when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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