opendss_edit_element

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world operation, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it checks element existence, builds the Edit command, reads values back, reports convergence, and fails on unknown properties instead of silently ignoring them.

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 front-loaded with the core action and alternative-tool relationship, then uses compact Args/Returns sections. Some content in Args and Returns overlaps with schema and output-schema information, but it remains efficient overall.

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?

With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the remaining important context: validation behavior, failure mode, read-back, and convergence reporting. It is nearly complete, though it could mention response_format or prerequisites such as the circuit state.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does list element, properties, and solve. However, the parameter section is thin and mostly restates names or format examples already present in the schema; it does not clarify response_format or provide additional semantic constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: edit properties of an existing element and re-solve. It also distinguishes this from the sibling raw-command tool by calling itself the typed alternative to opendss_run_command("Edit ...").

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool opendss_run_command and explains why to prefer this one: typed validation, existence checks, read-back, convergence reporting, and failure on unknown properties. That gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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