set_component_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals critical traits: distances are in millimetres regardless of document Units, dry_run=true previews without writing, and dry_run=false requires the expected_sha256 from the preview. This covers the most important behavioral nuances (safety workflow and unit semantics), which are not otherwise inferable from the schema.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: scope, unit clarification, and safe usage workflow. It is front-loaded with the tool's main purpose, references the input schema for structural details, and wastes no words. Excellent structure.

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 tool has seven parameters, nested objects, and an output schema. The description covers the tool's core behavior and the crucial dry-run/hash workflow, which is essential for safe use. It is not fully comprehensive—missing details on how to select the target component and what allow_locked does—but it is sufficient for understanding the tool's primary flow. The output schema suggests return values are documented elsewhere, so the description does not need to cover them.

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 definition coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of dry_run and expected_sha256, and clarifies that 'fields' values are in millimetres. However, it does not clarify the roles of path, txid, selector, or allow_locked, which are left ambiguous. The description adds meaningful value but does not fully cover all seven parameters.

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 'Custom-field-only component update', which clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (component custom fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_component_properties or set_component_value, making the tool's specific scope unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use dry_run=true first to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing the expected_sha256. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the 'Custom-field-only' qualifier implies it should be used for custom fields rather than standard fields. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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