Modify schematic primitive

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the transaction mechanism (snapshots, auto-restore) and the wire-attachment behavior for moves. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description enriches the behavioral model.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence introduces the core purpose and key safety feature; the second adds a specific use case. Every word 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?

The description covers transaction safety and wire behavior, but lacks details on what properties can be modified or what a 'primitive' is. The presence of an output schema helps, so it is largely complete for typical use.

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?

With 60% schema description coverage, the description adds some context (transactionId/projectId for snapshots) but does not explain the 'property' object structure or acceptable values. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as it provides minimal addition over 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 description clearly states 'modify a schematic primitive' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete or add by emphasizing safe modification and preservation of omitted fields.

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 explains that the tool is for safe modifications with transaction support and auto-restore, and that component moves keep wires attached. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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