set_component_value

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

Description aligns with annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false). No additional behavioral context provided (e.g., permissions, file mutation details). Annotations already shed some light, so description adds minimal new insight.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with key info. Could be slightly more structured but efficient overall.

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 4 parameters fully described in schema and no output schema, the description captures the core purpose. However, lacks details like file modification behavior or return value, which would improve completeness for a mutation tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds context about single vs batch mode, which maps to the parameters (reference/value vs values dict). Provides some added meaning but not extensive.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'component value(s) in a circuit file'. Mentions two modes (single or batch), differentiating it from sibling tools like add_component or list_components.

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?

Implies batch vs single mode usage but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like set_component_attribute or batch_results. With many siblings, more direction would be beneficial.

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