set_instance_variant

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions preservation of overrides and efficiency, which are key. However, it does not disclose error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., node must be an instance), or potential 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key benefits. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 covers the tool's purpose and advantages, but given the absence of an output schema, it lacks information about return values or error handling. For a simple mutation tool with two well-described parameters, it is nearly sufficient but could be improved.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about preserving overrides and efficiency, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the format of 'properties').

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 tool changes variant properties of a component instance, highlighting efficiency and preservation of overrides. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_component_instance' and 'detach_instance' by focusing on modifying an existing instance without recreation.

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 implies when to use this tool (to change variant properties efficiently) and contrasts with a delete+create workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'set_node_properties'.

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