edit_bbox_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. The description only says 'edit' which implies modification but gives no detail on effects (e.g., whether changes are irreversible, if it updates timestamps, or if it requires certain permissions). There is no mention of what happens to the existing annotation or if partial updates are supported. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are provided.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, which is concise. It front-loads the core action. No padding or redundant information. However, it could be improved by adding a bit more context without sacrificing brevity.

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 has 4 parameters (with 2 required), an output schema exists, and sibling tools involve similar annotation operations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details like update semantics or side effects. The output schema may describe return values, so the description needn't cover that, but it should explain what 'edit' entails (e.g., partial update or full replacement).

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the relationship between 'bbox', 'category_id', and the annotation's existing state. For example, it doesn't specify that leaving 'bbox' as null keeps the current geometry. The description adds no value over the schema for parameters.

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 'Edit' and the resource 'bbox annotation', and adds the specific constraint 'without changing its type'. This helps distinguish it from siblings like 'edit_rotated_bbox_annotation' or 'add_bbox_annotations'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other edit tools like 'edit_category', though the resource is clearly different.

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 implies when to use this tool: to modify a bounding box annotation while preserving its type. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that to change the type, you might need to delete and add a new annotation. No prerequisites or context are given.

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