Readdress, unpatch or rename fixtures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: atomic application of all edits, rollback in the copy on any problem, pre-check refusal with nothing sent, best-effort isolation check with its caveats, no-undo warning, ~10 s runtime, bridge version requirements, and the copyLeftOpen recovery path with the exact operator workaround.

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 purpose and exclusivity requirement are front-loaded, but the body is a dense run of long parenthetical clauses where the pre-check/rollback story is told twice (once as pre-checks, once as the in-copy re-check and restore). Most sentences earn their place, but the packaging makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 an irreversible mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition supplies return shape (items with before/after pairs, detail: true for full rows), failure modes, recovery instructions, and version gates. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret failures.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely non-schema semantics: addresses are applied together so fixtures can swap or shift within their own range, and verify reads each edited fixture back after commit. The remaining params (detail, exclusive) are only restated from the schema.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource ('Change existing fixtures: per edit, a new DMX address, unpatch: true, and/or a new name'), which is concrete enough to act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling gma3_patch_move or gma3_patch_retype, which plausibly overlap with readdressing/renaming.

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?

Usage is implied by the pre-check rules (all FIDs must exist, single-break modes only, no range overlaps), which tells an agent when a call will be refused. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing to gma3_patch_move/gma3_patch_add/gma3_patch_remove, and no guidance on when to prefer a different tool.

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