Edit Component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It meaningfully explains the non-obvious partial-update behavior ('backend treats absent fields as unchanged') and clarifies that grade fields are independent orthogonal axes. This goes well beyond a bare 'edit a component', though it does not cover permissions, validation, or side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only the essential behavioral nuances. The 'orthogonal axes' metaphor is slightly dense but earns its place by framing the partial-update model. It is not bloated.

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?

The description plus a 90%-covered schema is largely sufficient for calling the tool: required IDs are in the schema and partial-update semantics are stated. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to sibling edit tools, and it leaves the required server_version parameter unexplained. The presence of an output schema mitigates some of the gap, but the overall guidance is not fully 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 description coverage is 90%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema by explaining that per-component grades are orthogonal and that leaving fields unset preserves server-side values. This clarifies how to handle the nullable grade fields and the empty-string fields in practice.

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 action ('Edit') and the resource ('a component's properties'), which distinguishes it from other edit_* siblings that target different resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by scope or use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description gives solid operational guidance about partial updates ('absent fields are unchanged') and when to set grade fields ('set whichever apply'), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_asset or edit_trust_boundary. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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