Edit a schedule scheme

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds crucial behavior: dry-run by default, writes nothing until dry_run=false, never overwrites input, writes to output or <name>.edited.xml, criteria are preserved but not editable. It also discloses the output (before/after column lists) and offline/online requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but efficient: each sentence adds a distinct fact (behavior, dry-run, output destination, import step, criteria limitation, offline/online requirement). The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, so an agent can quickly identify the tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description covers the main workflow, safety around dry-run, output location, and the Archicad dependency. Minor gaps remain for port and spec_id semantics, but they don't block correct invocation for the primary use case.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains path (exported XML), spec_path (YAML spec), output, and dry_run (explicitly named). However, it never explains port or spec_id, leaving two of six parameters semantically undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a YAML scheme spec to an exported schedule scheme XML' and lists concrete effects (set columns/order, retarget bindings, rename). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_schedule_scheme and validate_schedule_scheme, which are read/validation operations.

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?

Provides clear context for use: it applies a spec to an exported XML, defaults to a dry run, and explains when Archicad must be open (Group/Name binding) vs fully offline (GUID-only binding). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use read_schedule_scheme when you only need to read,' so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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