modify_place

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (modify), partial update, and prerequisite discovery. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or reversibility, which are relevant for a modify 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?

The description is concise with four sentences plus a bullet list for arguments. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no superfluous text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which exempts description from explaining return values), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers usage, parameters, and prerequisites. The only minor gap is not mentioning the output shape, but that is optional under the rule.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose, providing an example for place_id, and clarifying that omitted fields remain unchanged. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the verb 'Modify' and the resource 'existing place in the Petri net', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'modify_arc' and 'modify_transition'.

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?

It explicitly mentions partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are updated') and a prerequisite step ('Use list_elements or get_network_status to discover place IDs first'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, this guidance is clear and helpful.

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