edit_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions return of a success/failure message and screenshot, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what 'edit' entails (e.g., are previous properties overwritten?). Lack of behavioral details is a significant gap.

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?

The description is structured with a header sentence, a usage note, and parameter/return sections. It is concise but includes some redundancy and lacks tight focus. Every sentence provides information, but the parameter descriptions could be more precise.

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 3 required parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema present, the description covers return values (message + screenshot) adequately. However, it does not fully describe the `obj_properties` parameter's structure, and the tool's behavior in the context of sibling tools is only partially clarified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists three parameters with brief descriptions: `doc_name`, `obj_name`, and `obj_properties` (described as 'the properties of the object to edit'). The description of `obj_properties` is vague and does not explain format or allowed keys, though it adds some meaning beyond the schema's empty titles.

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?

The description clearly states 'Edit an object in FreeCAD' with a verb and resource. It also attempts to differentiate from `create_object` by noting this tool is used when creation cannot be handled. However, the rationale is confusing because editing is distinct from creating, and it doesn't fully distinguish from other siblings like `delete_object` or `get_object`.

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 provides some guidance by saying it should be used when `create_object` cannot handle object creation, but this is ambiguous and not a clear usage rule. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives beyond `create_object`.

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