replace_model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation preserves placement and supports, and it requires an absolute path. It doesn't disclose whether the old mesh is destroyed or whether the operation is reversible, but the annotations already signal non-destructive intent. This is a reasonable level of transparency beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the use case, and the critical file-path constraint. No filler, no repetition of schema details. The most important operational detail (absolute path) is front-loaded at the end of the description.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only 25% schema description coverage, the description covers the core purpose and the key file constraint, but it leaves `repair_behavior` unexplained and doesn't mention what happens to the old mesh or whether the operation is reversible. An agent could call it correctly for the common case, but edge cases around repair behavior are under-specified.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the critical `file` parameter ('must be an absolute path') and implies `model_id` is the target. However, it does not explain `repair_behavior` (REPAIR/ERROR/IGNORE) or `scene_id` beyond what the schema already says. The description adds some value but leaves the enum parameter's semantics to the schema, which only lists the enum without explaining what each value does.

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 ('Swap'), a specific resource ('a model's mesh'), and the key behavioral constraint ('while keeping its placement and supports'). It also names the use case ('when the user re-exports a revised part'), which distinguishes it from generic update_model and import_model siblings. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 clear context for use ('when the user re-exports a revised part') and a critical prerequisite ('file must be an absolute path'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when to select it over siblings like update_model or import_model.

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