Set Instance Overrides

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

The description provides critical behavioral details beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint) by defining how to handle 'partial_success' status: report failed/skipped items and retry all non-success items. This is valuable operational transparency that the agent would otherwise not know.

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 core action and followed by a crucial conditional instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and the presence of annotations, the description is complete. It explains the core operation, the swapping behavior, and the critical partial-failure handling, leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (sourceInstanceId and targetNodes, including nodeId and nodeName with their expected values). The description does not add new parameter-level details, but it reinforces the workflow by mentioning 'targets' and 'source component', which aligns with the schema. 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 states a specific action ('Apply previously-read overrides') and identifies the target resource ('target instances') plus the mechanism ('targets are swapped to the source component and all overrides applied'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like instance_set_property, which applies a single property override, by emphasizing the batch application of overrides.

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 phrase 'previously-read overrides' implies the tool is used after reading overrides, providing clear context. The description also specifies what happens during the operation (swap and apply), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent.

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