Set Instance Property

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the four property-value categories but does not disclose that setting replaces existing values or that INSTANCE_SWAP requires a stable component key (the latter appears in schema). No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and object, and each clause adds meaning. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

With full schema descriptions, an output schema, and idempotence annotation, the concise description suffices for a single-property mutation. It lacks explicit cross-reference to `instance_set_overrides`, but that is a usage-guideline gap, not a completeness failure.

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 descriptions for all four parameters, including the exact `nodeName` requirement and `value` constraint for INSTANCE_SWAP. The description's category list (boolean toggle, text override, etc.) adds semantic grouping but no additional parameter-level syntax. 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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('instance'), plus scope ('one property'), and enumerates property categories. It distinguishes from sibling `instance_set_overrides` by emphasizing single-property scope. Clear and actionable.

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 implies single-property usage but never states when to prefer this over `instance_set_overrides` or how to discover valid property names. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. This is minimal usage guidance.

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