update_model

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

Annotations say the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond those flags: position units in millimeters, orientation in Euler degrees, and the precise meaning of the lock enum for auto_layout / auto_pack behavior. It does not contradict the annotations and provides meaningful detail for a mutating operation.

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 with no filler. The first sentence is a compact verb list that immediately conveys purpose, while the remaining sentences pack unit and enum semantics into clear, separable clauses. Everything included earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is helpful but not fully complete. It documents position/orientation formats and lock semantics, but scale behavior is ambiguous, no return/response behavior is described, and scene_id is only covered in the schema. An agent could call correctly for transform and lock operations but may mis-specify scale or misunderstand what the call returns.

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 only 29%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It adds units to position, clarifies orientation format, and enumerates the lock values that the schema omits. However, scale is left undefined (is it a factor? relative to what origin?) and scene_id/name semantics are only implied, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 names a specific resource 'model' and a precise verb list: 'Move, rotate, rescale, rename or lock a model.' This is far more specific than the generic title 'update_model' and distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like delete_model, duplicate_model, or replace_model.

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 useful context by explaining how `lock` interacts with auto_layout / auto_pack, which implies when changing the lock state matters. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like replace_model or duplicate_model, nor does it mention prerequisites or ordering.

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