swap_component

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states the bare action. It does not disclose whether existing instance overrides survive the swap (only the parameter description hints at this), whether the operation is reversible, whether instance-specific data is lost, or what happens to the selection after swap. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The seven-word sentence is maximally efficient, front-loads the verb, and contains no filler. It leans toward under-specification, but as a structure/conciseness matter it earns full credit for economy.

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 annotations and no output schema, this is incomplete. An agent cannot tell when to prefer this over batch_swap_component, what the side effects on overrides/children are, or what the operation returns. The minimal phrasing is adequate for intent but not for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (instance to swap, new component ID, preserve overrides defaulting to true). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but at full coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Swap') and a concrete resource ('component instance'), and the phrase 'one ... for another' signals single-instance scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling batch_swap_component or swap_mode, but the singular phrasing gives an agent enough to distinguish the core action.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes batch_swap_component, which performs the same operation in bulk, and detach_instance/reset_overrides, which touch similar concerns; the description offers no routing cues or exclusions.

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