set_instance_variant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It states that the tool preserves instance overrides and is more efficient, but it does not disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, error conditions, or whether changes are reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the primary action, the second explains the benefit. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description explains the core behavior and a key benefit. However, it lacks details about constraints (e.g., valid variants, whether properties must match a component set) and the result of the operation (e.g., the instance is modified in place). This is adequate but not complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it uses the same language ('variant properties', 'instance overrides'). No additional semantic value is provided for either parameter.

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 ('Change') and resource ('variant properties of a component instance'), and distinguishes this tool from alternatives by noting it preserves overrides and is more efficient than a delete+create workflow. This clearly states what the tool does and sets it apart from siblings like create_component_instance.

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 usage by contrasting with a delete+create workflow, suggesting this tool is better for changing variants without side effects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like set_node_properties or generate_component_variants, nor does it list when not to use it.

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