set_component_property_references

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 disclosure. It does not mention whether references are overwritten, what happens if the component property does not exist, or any side effects. The description only states the action and allowed keys, omitting key behavioral traits like destructiveness or reversibility.

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 composed of two efficient sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the purpose and lists keys. There is no extraneous information, and the critical details are front-loaded, making it 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?

While the schema covers parameters well, there is no output schema and the description does not explain return values or error conditions. For a tool that modifies references, behavior on failure or when references already exist is missing. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without further inference.

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 100%, and the description adds value by explicitly listing the allowed keys ('visible', 'characters', 'mainComponent'), which reinforces the schema's example. This helps the agent understand the exact mapping without ambiguity, exceeding the baseline score of 3.

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 tool sets component property references on a sublayer, linking a child node's property to an existing component property. It specifies the allowed keys ('visible', 'characters', 'mainComponent'), making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like set_component_property or set_instance_overrides.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_component_property, set_instance_overrides). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose alone.

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