edit_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool edits objects and returns a success/failure message with a screenshot, but fails to disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether edits are destructive or reversible, error handling, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the usage guideline sentence could be more precise, and the parameter explanations are minimal, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context and detailed parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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. It lists the three parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'doc_name: The name of the document to edit the object in'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't detail the structure or constraints of 'obj_properties' (a nested object), leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edit an object in FreeCAD' with a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('object'), making it distinct from siblings like 'create_object' or 'delete_object'. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_object' or other object-related tools beyond the basic action.

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 provides some guidance by stating 'This tool is used when the `create_object` tool cannot handle the object creation', which implies usage in fallback scenarios. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use advice or alternatives beyond this single reference, leaving gaps in context for other siblings like 'delete_object' or 'get_object'.

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