updateObject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions 'partial updates' which is useful context, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that communicate the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and adds a useful detail about partial updates. No wasted words, though it could benefit from more complete information given the tool's complexity.

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 (6 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the scope of updatable properties, doesn't mention the required 'id' parameter, and provides no information about return values or error conditions. For a mutation tool with this level of schema complexity, much more context is needed.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage (only the 'rotation' parameter has a description), the description must compensate but fails to do so. The description mentions 'any properties' but doesn't explain what those properties are, their formats, or constraints. It doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the bare schema provides for the 6 parameters.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('any properties of an existing 3D object'), specifying it supports partial updates. It distinguishes from creation tools like 'createObject' by focusing on existing objects, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar update tools like 'updateLight' or 'updateParticles'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this updates 3D objects, there's no mention of when to choose this over 'animateObject', 'cloneObject', or other sibling tools that might modify objects. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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