update_from_libraries

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

Annotations declare mutation, destructiveness, and idempotence, but the description adds valuable context: the prerequisite to save/close the library, the failure mode where parts remain on old 3D models, the REPLACE behavior of refresh_parts, and the return contents. This goes well beyond structured fields.

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 purpose and packs prerequisite, caveat, parameter details, and return info into five dense sentences without filler. Length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states what is returned (attribute changes and every part's 3D model, listing parts with none). With annotations covering safety and the description covering prerequisites, caveats, parameter behavior, and returns, nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains refresh_parts takes reference designators (one per device suffices, e.g. ["J3","J9"]), re-pulls those parts' devices with REPLACE, and triggers Fusion's version-update prompt, fully specifying the parameter's semantics.

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 ('Update the open design from all its libraries') and provides a concrete alias ('Fusion's Update all'). It is unique among siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate from other library-related tools like insert_library_part or push_3d, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Save the library and close it first') and a caveat about when 'Update all' fails, directing use of refresh_parts. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so 4.

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