eda_lib_3_dmodel_modify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>, '操作是否成功') and the null-clearing semantics for attributes. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, permission requirements, or consequences of the mutation, which matters for a write operation 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 compact: a signature line, a one-line purpose, a remarks note, and a returns note. Every element earns its place and the key purpose is stated immediately. No redundant prose.

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?

For a simple modify-with-optional-fields tool, the description covers the essentials: what is modified, what fields can be changed, how to clear fields, and the boolean return. Gaps include the meaning of classification values and any failure or prerequisite context. Without an output schema or annotations, a bit more behavioral detail would be expected.

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 input schema only exposes generic wrappers (args array, windowId) with empty item schemas, so the description's signature line is the only documentation of modelUuid, libraryUuid, modelName, classification, and description. The description lists names, types, and optionality, and the remarks explain null semantics. However, ILIB_ClassificationIndex is left unexplained, and the description does not compensate fully for the schema's lack of per-parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '修改 3D 模型' (modify 3D model), prefixed by the full method signature `lib_3DModel.modify(...)`. It is clearly a mutating operation on a 3D library model. It does not explicitly call out how it differs from its siblings (create/delete/copy/get/search), but the verb itself carries the differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_lib_3_dmodel_create, eda_lib_3_dmodel_delete, or eda_lib_3_dmodel_copy. The only usage hint is the remarks about clearing properties by setting them to null, which is parameter-level guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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