Update specification rows in KOMPAS-3D by object_id and standard fields, applying edits and optionally saving changes.
Apply edits to existing specification rows by object_id and standard fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | ||
| updates | Yes | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| layout_name | No | ||
| max_objects | No | ||
| close_after_save | No | ||
| description_index | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Apply edits,' which implies mutation, but it does not disclose whether changes are persisted only when save=true, what side effects occur, whether edits are reversible, or how close_after_save and max_objects affect execution.
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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to scan, though it achieves this by omitting important operational detail.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits critical context around save semantics, the shape of the updates array, document/layout scoping, row limits, and what happens after save.
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, but it only hints that updates contain 'object_id and standard fields.' It does not explain save, document_id, layout_name, max_objects, close_after_save, or description_index, leaving most of the 7 parameters semantically undocumented.
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 action ('Apply edits'), a specific resource ('existing specification rows'), and the key identifier ('by object_id and standard fields'). It is clear enough to distinguish from preview_specification_changes and create_specification, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_specification_changes or apply_changeset. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected workflow ordering, or when the save parameter should be set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.