replace_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavior details: the asset is freshly retrieved from Objaverse and the footprint position is kept. It does not explain whether the replacement is destructive, reversible via undo, or how other transforms like scale and rotation are affected, so transparency is partial.

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 two sentences with no filler. The operation and spatial behavior are front-loaded, and the parameter note about category is placed in a separate sentence where it is easy to parse.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description gives a solid overview but leaves the required query parameter under-defined. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the query gap makes the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains category ('optional single noun for retrieval') and implies object_id through 'by id', but it never explicitly defines the required query parameter or how it relates to category. The agent is left to infer the query semantics from 'freshly retrieved Objaverse asset'.

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 states a specific verb ('Replace'), the target resource ('an object by id'), and the source ('freshly retrieved Objaverse asset'), plus the key spatial constraint that footprint position is preserved. This clearly distinguishes replace_object from sibling tools like add_object, remove_object, and move_object.

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 intended use is implied: swap an existing object with a current Objaverse asset while keeping its footprint. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so an agent must infer the decision from the tool name and scene context.

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