swap_instance_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it swaps, but never discloses what happens to instance overrides, whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires auth or a library key lookup, or how errors surface for an invalid key.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the economy comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently or interpret what changed after the call.

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 both parameters (instanceId, newComponentKey) are undocumented in the structured fields. The description gestures at 'instance' and 'component key' but adds no format, ID convention, or key-resolution detail to compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('Swap') and resource ('an instance to a different library component key'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings like replace_all_instances or create_instance_from_component_key.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. component must exist in the library), and no mention of the sibling replace_all_instances that handles the bulk case. The agent must infer context entirely.

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