Manage Component Property

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

The annotations include only `openWorldHint: true`, indicating possible side effects not fully captured. The description states the core action but does not elaborate on side effects, required node verification (`nodeName`), or that editing overwrites existing values. It is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence with a pointer to the delete sibling, conveying essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 9 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the core action and types. It could explain the verification purpose of `nodeName` or the requirement that the target is a main component/variant set, but the schema handles parameter details. Overall, it is sufficient for the complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying edge cases like `defaultValue` for `INSTANCE_SWAP` requiring a component node ID. Baseline score 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 adds or edits component-property definitions, specifies the allowed types (BOOLEAN/TEXT/INSTANCE_SWAP), and the target (main component or variant set). It immediately distinguishes from the delete sibling tool, making the purpose 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 explicitly mentions that deleting is handled by `component_delete_property`, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus other property-related tools like `instance_set_property`, which deals with instance overrides rather than definitions. Still, the scope is well-defined.

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