set_component_pattern

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 reveals that distances are always in millimetres regardless of document units, that dry_run previews without writing, and that a non-dry-run requires the expected_sha256 from the preview. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It stops short of covering all side effects or failure modes (e.g., what happens if pad mapping is not preserved), but the safety workflow is well documented.

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 sentences, each dense with functional information. It front-loads the main action and condition, then adds the critical mm units note, and finishes with the dry-run workflow. No filler or redundant content; every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, a nested selector object, and an output schema. The description covers the safety workflow but not the selector object format, acceptable pattern_style values, or the role of path/txid/allow_locked. The output schema may help with return values, but the agent still lacks enough information to construct a valid request for this complex 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains two parameters (dry_run and expected_sha256) and mentions units, but the core parameters selector and pattern_style are completely undescribed; path, txid, and allow_locked are also unaddressed. With seven parameters, the description covers only a small fraction, leaving the agent to guess at selector syntax and pattern_style values.

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 'Swap to one embedded pattern', clearly indicating the action (swap) and resource (component pattern). The condition 'only when pad mapping is preserved exactly' adds a scoping qualifier that helps distinguish this from other pattern-related tools like validate_library_pattern or get_library_pattern. It lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 an explicit precondition: use only when pad mapping is preserved exactly. It also gives a clear safety workflow: run with dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting and passing expected_sha256. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the precondition and workflow effectively tell an agent when and how to invoke the tool safely.

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