set_instance_properties

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds meaningful behavior: unspecified properties retain values, SLOT properties are excluded, and the response shape is { ok, nodeId }. This clarifies the update semantics beyond annotated hints.

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 dense but well-organized, using examples to encode the key syntax. No filler; each sentence adds a constraint or clarification.

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?

Given 2 params and no output schema, the description addresses the key syntax, value types, unsupported slots, and return shape. It's sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions, but the description adds substantial semantic detail: the exact key format per property type (e.g., bare name for VARIANT, '#id' suffix for others), value types, and the INSTANCE_SWAP target node id. This compensates beyond 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('an instance's component properties'), enumerating the supported property types. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on component properties and referencing get_component_api for key names.

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?

It implicitly indicates when to use by pointing to get_component_api as the source for property names, and explicitly notes that SLOT properties are not settable. It doesn't name alternative tools but provides sufficient context given the large sibling set.

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