Manage Component Property

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

Annotations include 'openWorldHint' indicating potential side effects not fully described. The description does not add any behavioral details beyond the basic operation (add/edit). No contradictions with annotations, but lacks disclosure of any permissions, limits, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence conveys the core action and scope; the second provides a clear pointer to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 2 actions, 3 types) and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could briefly mention that action-specific parameters are required (e.g., propertyType for ADD), but the schema already covers that. The description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., associating types with actions) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 'Add or edit a component-property definition' with explicit types (BOOLEAN/TEXT/INSTANCE_SWAP) and target (main component or variant set). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'component_delete_property' by referencing it for deletion.

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 tells users that deleting is handled by 'component_delete_property', providing a clear alternative for that specific operation. However, it does not elaborate on when to use this tool versus other property-related tools like 'instance_set_property', though the target (definitions on components vs instance overrides) is implied.

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