project_update_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the deep-merge semantics ('nested objects merge, everything else replaces') and the replace flag's effect. It also implies an error condition by requiring the match to hit 'exactly one block'. It omits reversibility/permission notes, but the mutation semantics are unusually well documented.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the addressing and merge semantics. Every sentence earns its place, though the technical detail makes it slightly heavy.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition covers the core addressing and merge behavior but leaves stage, section, and parameters_file undefined despite parameters_file being required. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the parameter gaps hold this below a full score.

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 must compensate. It explains index, process_list, python_module, model_part_name, variable_name, parameters, and replace, which is meaningful added value. However, three parameters — stage, section, and the required parameters_file — are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Change the Parameters of one existing process block'), which cleanly distinguishes it from project_add_process, project_remove_process, and project_list_processes. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly describes the two addressing modes (process_list + index, or matching python_module/model_part_name/variable_name) and points to project_list_processes as the source of addresses. It doesn't state when to prefer this over project_add_process or project_update_solver, but the context is clear enough.

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