batch_swap_component

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the swap scope and never explains what happens to overrides, hidden/locked instances, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutating batch operation this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded. Every word contributes.

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 two parameters, the essential scope and parameter identities are covered. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important operational details (override handling, error behavior, reversibility) unaddressed, so it is adequate but not complete.

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%: the schema already describes oldComponentId as 'Component to replace' and newComponentId as 'Replacement component.' The tool description echoes this directionality but adds no new semantic value.

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 names a precise action ('Swap'), a precise object ('all instances of one component for another'), and a scope ('across the file'). This clearly separates it from the sibling swap_component, which reads as a more targeted swap.

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 phrase 'all instances... across the file' implies a global batch use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over swap_component nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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