Manage Component

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint:false, so the description adds 'Mutates scene' and 'No confirmation required', disclosing the immediate mutation side effect and lack of a confirmation prompt. This goes beyond the annotation's simple non-read-only flag.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mutation warning, followed by essential constraints. Every sentence earns its place without repetition.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, side effects, and constraints. It doesn't mention return values or error behavior, but these are less critical for a straightforward add/remove operation.

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 every parameter (path, type, action) already has a detailed description. The description repeats the action constraint and type examples, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

States 'Add or remove a component' and 'Mutates scene' — a specific verb and resource. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component (read) and set_property (property modification).

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?

Explicitly says action must be 'add' or 'remove' ONLY and directs to use set_property with prop='m_Enabled' for enable/disable. Also clarifies type format with short/full namespace examples.

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