swap_component

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the return shape { ok, nodeId } and clarifies the component source types, but does not discuss side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites like existing instance status. This is reasonable given annotation coverage.

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: the first states the core function, the second details parameter choice and return value. No filler or redundancy.

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 essential operation, parameter semantics, and return format. It doesn't address whether both componentKey and componentId can be provided or error handling, but given the schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema covers all parameters, and the description goes further by explaining that componentKey is a 'published component, imported via the API' and componentId is a 'local COMPONENT node,' adding semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 operation: 'Swap an instance's main component.' It also specifies the two input modes (componentKey and componentId), making the tool's scope distinct from siblings like set_instance_properties or detach_instance.

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 clear context on how to use the tool by explaining the two component specification methods (published key vs local node). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or list exclusion criteria.

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