mdpa_edit_sub_model_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key destructive semantics: 'delete' removes the whole part including children while entities stay in the mesh, and 'remove' also affects descendants. Ancestor propagation for 'add' is also noted. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether edits are reversible/transactional.

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?

A single dense sentence organized around the action verbs keeps it front-loaded and mostly waste-free. It is information-rich but readable, with only minor reliance on parenthetical cramming.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the destructive semantics of delete/remove are covered. But with 11 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves several parameters (overwrite, output, the various id lists) undocumented for an agent that must supply them.

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, and it partially does by linking node_ids/selector to 'add', new_name to 'rename' (single word), and noting ancestors/descendants. However, most of the 11 parameters (output, overwrite, element_ids, condition_ids, geometry_ids) get no semantic explanation, leaving a substantial gap.

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 (edit) and resource (existing sub model part) and enumerates exactly what edit means via four actions (add/remove/rename/delete). Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling mdpa_create_sub_model_part, which creates rather than edits.

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 action list implies when each mode applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. siblings such as mdpa_create_sub_model_part or mdpa_add_entities. The agent must infer that this operates on existing parts from the word 'existing' and from the delete semantics.

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