eda_lib_simulation_model_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the null-clearing behavior ('如希望清除某些属性，则将其的值设置为 null') and returns a success boolean, but it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or failure scenarios when the model or library is missing.

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: signature, brief purpose, remark, version, and return type are clearly separated. It is concise without redundancy, though the version info could be considered extraneous but does not harm readability.

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?

It covers the essential parameters and return type, and the null-clearing remark adds practical usage context. However, it does not explain valid values for fields like modelCategory or modelPin, nor does it clarify the relationship between classification and description, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 description provides the full function signature with parameter names, types, and nested structure for modelProps, including optional fields. This goes far beyond the schema's generic wrapper (args array and windowId), giving agents the exact parameter order and meaning required to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool modifies a simulation model ('修改仿真模型'), with a verb and resource. The name eda_lib_simulation_model_modify distinguishes it from sibling create/delete/get/search tools, though the description itself doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_lib_simulation_model_create or eda_lib_simulation_model_delete. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing model UUID, or conditions for using this vs. other library modify tools.

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