set_instance_overrides

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key side effect: target instances will be swapped to the source component, which is not obvious from the tool name. It also confirms that all copied override properties will be applied, giving a clear outcome. Missing details like error handling or prerequisite failure are not critical for this simple operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the detailed behavior. No extraneous information or repetition of structured data. It is highly concise and effective.

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 tool with two fully documented parameters and a simple action, the description is mostly complete. It explains the input and outcome, but could be stronger by explicitly stating that a prior copy operation is required and how selection works (though the schema mentions 'currently selected instances'). The absence of an output schema is fine since the description doesn't promise a return value.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters fully (sourceInstanceId as the source component, targetNodeIds as target instance IDs). The description adds a bit of relationship context ('Target instances will be swapped to the source component') but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: applying previously copied overrides to component instances. It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('overrides to component instances'), and the second sentence clarifies the swap behavior, distinguishing it from just reading overrides (get_instance_overrides) or creating instances (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 the context of use: it only makes sense after overrides have been copied ('previously copied overrides') and when instances are selected ('selected component instances'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended workflow.

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