update_cabinet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most non-obvious trait: edits do not mutate in place, a new design ID is minted and the prior design survives. It says nothing about permissions, whether validation failures abort the call, or how the new ID is surfaced, so coverage is partial rather than complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds information: validation, new ID creation, and preservation of the original.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core non-destructive semantics are stated. However, the nested untyped `changes` object is the primary thing an agent must construct, and the definition leaves its contents entirely unspecified.

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 0%, and `changes` is a free-form object that accepts arbitrary properties, so the description needed to explain what keys belong there. It only gestures at this with 'parameter changes' and says nothing about whether `design_id` refers to the source design being versioned.

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 action and outcome: it validates parameter changes and returns a NEW design ID while preserving the old one. That versioning semantics is more informative than the bare name 'update_cabinet' would suggest, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling create_cabinet, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among create_cabinet, inspect_design, or export_cad. The phrase 'preserving the old design' implies this is the non-destructive edit path, but the agent must infer that routing rather than being told it.

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