add_component_property

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and non-read-only. Description adds that the property starts inert and requires binding to become functional, which is beyond annotation scope. No contradiction.

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?

Description is comprehensive but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds information, but it could be tightened. Front-loaded with key information (what it does, types).

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?

No output schema, but description returns the object shape. Covers lifecycle (inert → bind), type-specific notes, and differentiation from other tools. Complete for a property creation tool with good annotations.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value by explaining that defaultValue must match type type, preferredValues is INSTANCE_SWAP only, and returns propertyId for subsequent operations. Schema already detailed, so score is above baseline but not 5.

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 it declares a component property on a component or variant set, lists the three types (BOOLEAN, TEXT, INSTANCE_SWAP), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bind_component_property and combine_as_variants.

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?

Provides guidance that the property starts inert and must be bound using bind_component_property, with specific layer attachments per type. Also notes that VARIANT properties come from combine_as_variants, not this tool. Could explicitly state when not to use, but sufficient.

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