edit_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the return value (message and screenshot) and the optional screenshot behavior (include_screenshot, view_name), but it does not disclose that the operation modifies the existing object in-place, potential side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with a clear Args section and Returns section. It is reasonably concise, though the 'Args:' list repeats parameter names without adding deep detail. Overall, it is organized and front-loaded with the purpose and a usage tip, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the basic inputs and return type, but lacks critical context: the format of `obj_properties` is undefined, there is no mention of error handling or partial updates, and the screenshot output format is not described. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), this is a moderate gap, not a complete failure.

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 explain all parameters. It does provide basic explanations for each (e.g., `doc_name`, `obj_name`, `include_screenshot` with token-saving advice, `view_name` with guidance). However, `obj_properties` is only described as 'the properties of the object to edit', which is vague and does not clarify expected structure or allowed keys. This partial compensation lands at a neutral 3.

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 'Edit an object in FreeCAD', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning `create_object` as an alternative. However, the sentence about 'cannot handle the object creation' is confusing because the tool is for editing, not creating, slightly muddying the purpose.

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 description gives a single usage context ('used when the `create_object` tool cannot handle the object creation') but does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like `delete_object` or `get_object`. This provides some guidance but lacks comprehensive exclusions or contrasting scenarios.

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