Modify an existing component by applying surgical AST mutations for style, text, variants, or children—no full regeneration required.
Applies surgical mutations (style, text, variants, children) to an existing component without full regeneration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | Yes | The component AST to patch | |
| mutations | Yes | Array of mutations (SetNodeStyle, SetNodeText, AddVariant, InsertChild, RemoveNode) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool mutates an existing component and avoids regenerating it, but it does not explain whether changes are persisted, reversible, atomic, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, target, scope, and key differentiator in under fifteen words, which is ideal for quick agent comprehension.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining observable behavior and expected return. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether the input component is mutated in place, or what happens on failure. Given the tool's mutating nature and nested object parameters, this is incomplete.
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 input schema already documents both required parameters. The description adds a useful shorthand by listing mutation scopes ('style, text, variants, children') that map to the mutations array, but it does not add substantial semantic detail 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 ('Applies surgical mutations') and a clear resource ('existing component'), and explicitly contrasts itself with full regeneration, distinguishing it from sibling tools like producer_generate_component. It also lists the mutation categories, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 clearly communicates that this tool is for targeted edits to an existing component rather than full regeneration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the contrast with regeneration provides sufficient contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.