set_instance_overrides

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety/behavior burden. It clearly states the mutation effect (instances swapped to source component and overrides applied), but it does not disclose reversibility, failure modes, or whether the source component is modified. This is moderate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no redundant information. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter mutation tool, but it lacks explicit information about prerequisites (e.g., how overrides were copied), return/result behavior, and edge cases like empty selections or invalid source IDs. The schema provides parameter context but does not cover these operational aspects.

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?

The schema descriptions for sourceInstanceId and targetNodeIds are basic (ID and array). The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that target instances are swapped to the source component and that copied override properties are applied, clarifying the relationship between the two parameters beyond the schema.

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 ('Apply'), the resource ('previously copied overrides'), and the target ('selected component instances'). It also explains the effect (swapping to source component) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_instance_overrides (read-only) and create_component_instance (creation).

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 'previously copied overrides' implies a prerequisite (a copy operation must have happened) and 'selected component instances' indicates the tool acts on the current selection. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.

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