set_instance_overrides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the primary action (swap and apply overrides) but does not mention potential side effects, irreversibility, or permission requirements. This is adequate but not rich, as it lacks deeper context about the mutation's impact.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the action, and the second clarifies the outcome. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easily and quickly parsable.

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?

For a 2-param tool without an output schema or annotations, the description covers the action, target, and effect. It leaves out explicit prerequisites like 'copied overrides' but implies them. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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% with meaningful descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds context by explaining that targetNodeIds refer to the selected instances and sourceInstanceId corresponds to the source component, reinforcing the semantic relationship beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 a specific verb 'Apply' and clearly identifies the resource: 'previously copied overrides to selected component instances.' It also explains the effect—'swapped to the source component'—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_instance_overrides and creates a clear understanding of its function.

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 implies a workflow: overrides must have been copied beforehand and instances must be selected. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to use this tool versus a similar one like get_instance_overrides.

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