edit_regions

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

Annotations only give the coarse safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds genuinely new behavior: edits are atomic, they produce a new revision rather than mutating in place, and paint mutates a shared mesh resource so every instance is affected. That last point is exactly the kind of side effect an agent must know before calling. Missing permission/error behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the core behavior and the scoping constraint, then the action vocabulary, then the one dangerous side effect. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing is padding.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and three undocumented required parameters, the description covers atomicity and the shared-resource caveat but omits prerequisites, how the resulting revision is identified/returned, and undo semantics. The external resource pointer mitigates this somewhat but the definition alone is not sufficient to call the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and the edits array is schemaless (additionalProperties: true, no enum), so the description carries real weight by enumerating the valid action names for that array and routing the agent to a resource URI for exact shapes. However project_id and revision — both required strings — are left completely undefined, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apply spatial edits') plus the scope constraint ('atomically to a new revision'), and enumerates the six supported action types. It is unambiguous against every sibling, none of which touch geometry regions, though it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent learns which action names are valid and is pointed to the bambustudio://spatial-edits resource for shapes. There is no statement of when to use this versus e.g. analyze_geometry or open_in_studio, and no prerequisites such as whether a project must be open or how a revision is chosen.

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