edit_component_property

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

The description reveals critical behavioral details beyond the annotations: renaming returns a new propertyId (keeping the #id suffix but changing the name part), requires using the returned propertyId later, and existing bindings keep working. It also explicitly states the return shape. These are non-obvious side effects that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not convey.

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?

Four sentences pack all essential information with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the core action, then covers usage constraint, behavioral nuance, source of IDs, and return value—all in a compact, structured manner.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the return object explicitly. It covers preconditions (property ids from get_component_api), special cases (INSTANCE_SWAP only), and post-conditions (renaming ID change, bindings preserved). Given the tool's moderate complexity and five parameters, this description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that at least one of name/defaultValue/preferredValues must be supplied, and that preferredValues is only applicable for INSTANCE_SWAP properties. It also explains the propertyId format implication ('#id suffix is kept'), which is not fully captured in 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 opens with 'Change an existing component property' and enumerates three specific operations: rename, change defaultValue, or change preferredValues (for INSTANCE_SWAP only). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_component_property or delete_component_property by focusing on modifying existing properties.

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 explicitly instructs 'Supply at least one' and tells the user to get current property ids from get_component_api, which serves as a prerequisite. It implies when to use this tool (when an existing property needs modification) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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