Update CAD model

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context about concurrency control via expectedRevision and the 'replacing' behavior, which is not covered by annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then provides a key usage tip, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns or confirm partial vs. full update semantics (though 'replacing' implies partial). The concurrency guidance is useful, but given the tool's complexity (5 params, deep nested shape), a few more details about acceptable update combinations or response would improve completeness.

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 explains expectedRevision's role in preventing concurrent overwrites and clarifies that shape is a 'parametric shape definition.' It does not detail each shape variant, but the schema provides that structure.

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 a CAD model by replacing its name, color, or parametric shape definition,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_model, transform_model, and delete_model by focusing on editing existing model attributes.

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 the tool is for editing an existing model's metadata/shape, which differentiates it from create/transform/delete. It explicitly advises 'Pass expectedRevision to prevent overwriting concurrent edits,' providing a concrete usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like transform_model for geometric changes.

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