semantic_model_update_bim

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

The description usefully adds that the operation is long-running and that it reads model.bim from a file path, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens after the update, whether it is asynchronous, or what side effects replacing the full definition might have. The annotations are not contradicted: readOnlyHint=false aligns with a mutation, and destructiveHint=false is not directly challenged.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core action and format are front-loaded, and the file-reading detail is placed immediately after. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple update tool with three well-documented parameters, but the 'long-running' note is left unexplained. There is no output schema and no mention of expected response or how to track completion, which leaves an agent uncertain about asynchronous behavior.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces that definitionFilePath points to a model.bim JSON file, but it adds no new semantic detail about workspaceId or semanticModelId beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a semantic model's full definition'), and names the input format (TMSL/BIM JSON) and source (file path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like semantic_model_update_tmdl and semantic_model_update_details, which target different formats or partial updates.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need to replace a semantic model's full BIM definition from a file, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like semantic_model_update_details or semantic_model_update_tmdl. The 'full definition' phrasing gives context, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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