swap_card_project_variation

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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint: false; the description does not disclose whether the swap is atomic, reversible, what happens on invalid UUIDs, or whether it overwrites existing variation assignments. As a mutating tool, this leaves a transparency gap beyond what annotations already 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the parameter format is stated directly. No wasted words 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?

Both required parameters are fully described by the schema abbreviator. However, there is no output schema and the description offers no guidance on return values, error handling, or side effects, which are meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description restates the exact map format '{ customization_uuid: new_variation_uuid }'. The examples add slight color but no genuine semantic information beyond the schema's property 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 uses the specific verb 'Swap', identifies the resource ('one or more customizations on a project') and gives concrete examples of variation types (paper type, color, size). This clearly differentiates it from the many update_* siblings in the card project domain.

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 operation's purpose strongly implies when to use it (changing a customization to a different variation), but the description does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like update_website_customization or note any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the name and examples.

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