edit_object

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return of a success/failure message and a screenshot, but it does not explain side effects, whether edits are saved, or permission requirements. It gives minimal insight into how the editing affects the object.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a structured Args section and a Returns section, which aids readability. The 'This tool is used when' sentence is slightly redundant but does not significantly bloat the text.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It does not explain how obj_properties should be formatted, what constitutes success or failure messages, or how this tool differs from create_object and delete_object. The screenshot mention is helpful but not enough.

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?

The descriptions for all three parameters are essentially tautological: doc_name is 'the name of the document', obj_name is 'the name of the object', and obj_properties is 'the properties of the object'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it provides no additional meaning about the structure of obj_properties or any constraints.

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' with a specific verb and resource. It also references create_object as a sibling, though the wording of 'object creation' is confusing. The core action is unambiguous.

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 a conditional usage statement ('used when the `create_object` tool cannot handle the object creation'), but this is misleading since it implies a fallback for creation rather than editing. It does not offer clear guidance on when to choose edit_object over alternatives.

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