Set Instance Property

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

The tool's idempotentHint and openWorldHint annotations already signal idempotency and potential side effects. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., whether existing unchanged properties are preserved, what happens on error). Given the annotations, the description is minimally adequate but doesn't enrich the agent's understanding of runtime behavior.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action and property types. It avoids unnecessary words, but it could be improved by front-loading the purpose more explicitly and perhaps breaking into a structured format (e.g., bullet points). Nonetheless, it is concise and directly actionable.

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 tool's straightforward action (setting one property) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is largely complete. It lacks only context around when to choose this tool over siblings, which is addressed in usage_guidelines. The description covers the essential elements for a single-property setter.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds some value by clarifying that propertyName is a 'human-readable name' and that value for INSTANCE_SWAP must be a component key. However, this information is partly already in the schema (for value). Overall, the description provides marginal additional meaning 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 clearly states the action ('Set one property'), the resource ('on an instance'), and enumerates the types of properties it handles ('boolean toggle, text override, instance swap, or variant selection'). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like instance_set_overrides (which sets multiple properties) and component_manage_property (which manages component-level properties).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contraindications, or direct the user to other tools for related tasks (e.g., setting multiple properties via instance_set_overrides). Without such context, the agent may misuse the tool for bulk operations.

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