Manage Component Property

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

The description clarifies the mutating scope ('main component or variant set') and the property types supported, and directs deletion elsewhere. With openWorldHint as the only annotation, this adds useful safety and scope context, though it does not detail side effects on instances or permission requirements.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a single purposeful pointer to the deletion sibling. No filler or redundant detail.

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 rich input schema and output schema, the description provides the essential scope (main component/variant set) and deletion alternative. It doesn't explain return value or prereqs, but those are covered by structured fields, making this adequate for a complex tool.

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 the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description repeats type names (BOOLEAN/TEXT/INSTANCE_SWAP) and target concept already in nodeId/nodeName descriptions, adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 phrase 'Add or edit' and clearly identifies the resource as 'component-property definition' on 'main component or variant set', with allowed types enumerated. It distinguishes itself from the deletion counterpart by naming component_delete_property, and from sibling tools like instance_set_property by specifying the target scope.

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?

It explicitly states that deleting is handled by component_delete_property, giving a clear exclusion. It does not discuss when to choose ADD vs EDIT, but the schema and parameter descriptions cover that. Overall it provides clear context without naming all sibling alternatives.

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