query_parts

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value: coordinate frames (uncentred build frame vs. original body-local frame), units (0.25 m integer blocks), the contents of returned rows, and the rejection of partial multi-voxel selections. It stops short of describing pagination/limit behavior, error conditions, or permissions, so coverage is partial.

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 body is dense but each sentence carries technical content; the problem is front-loading: the vague 'Parts and revision for precise editing' leads while the concrete coordinate-frame and selection details follow. Size is reasonable for the parameter complexity, so waste is low.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values (rows, transform matrix, mirror bitmask) need not be re-explained, and the description reasonably covers the select/coordinate semantics. It is still incomplete on pagination (limit/offset defaults 100/0), the required 'design' parameter, and how this differs from search_parts, which matters given the crowded sibling set.

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 explains the most complex parameter well ('select: ids, name, definition or inclusive bounds [[min_x,min_y,min_z],[max_x,max_y,max_z]]'), including the nested bounds shape. However, 'design', 'limit', and 'offset' receive no explanation at all, leaving three of four parameters 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 opens with 'Parts and revision for precise editing,' which identifies the resource (parts of a design) but the phrasing is oblique rather than a clean verb+resource statement. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as search_parts or get_part_definition, so an agent cannot route confidently from the description alone.

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?

Usage is only implied via 'for precise editing.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many part-related siblings. The one actionable guideline ('select an id to target the whole component') is a constraint, not a routing rule.

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