openvsp.modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Validate edits, then replace the source model,' which implies a destructive overwrite of the source model, but it does not state whether the original file is backed up, whether validation failures prevent replacement, or what happens to existing data. The word 'replace' hints at destructive behavior but lacks detail.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: 'Validate edits, then replace the source model.' It is concise and to the point, but it omits necessary context. It earns a 4 for conciseness but not a 5 because it is too terse to be fully useful.

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 complexity (nested OpenVSPRequest with many fields, parameter edits, set commands, analysis settings) and the absence of annotations and output schema details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the validation process, the meaning of 'replace the source model,' or how this tool relates to the broader workflow. An agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional information.

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 the description does not explain the single 'request' parameter or its nested fields. The schema itself is rich, but the description adds no meaning about how to construct the request, what 'edits' means in terms of parameter_edits or set_commands, or how validation works. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Validate edits, then replace the source model' states a clear action (validate then replace) and resource (source model), but it does not specify what kind of edits or what model, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like openvsp.set_parameters or openvsp.create_model. It is more specific than a tautology but leaves ambiguity about the exact operation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for modifying an existing model, nor does it contrast with openvsp.set_parameters or openvsp.create_model. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema.

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