Update Lightning Web Component

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the critical placeholder behavior for omitted files, which is a significant side effect not obvious from the schema. It also mentions redeployment via Metadata API, adding context.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The critical warning is placed in the second sentence, and no filler. Excellent.

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 description gives key usage warning and deployment method, but the contradiction with schema leaves uncertainty about the actual behavior of omitted files. It also doesn't address what happens after update (e.g., deployment status) or prerequisites, though output schema is absent. Major completeness gap from contradiction.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters (100%), including 'leave undefined to keep existing' for css/html/javascript. The description's warning that omitted files use 'empty placeholders' directly contradicts the schema's 'leave undefined to keep existing,' creating confusion about whether omitting preserves or wipes. This contradiction undermines parameter clarity, so below baseline.

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 'Updates an existing Lightning Web Component by redeploying it with updated HTML, JavaScript, or CSS,' specifying the action, resource, and method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_lwc, which creates new components.

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 provides explicit guidance on file handling: 'Provide only the files you want to update — any files omitted will use empty placeholders (so you should provide all files you want to keep).' This tells the agent how to invoke correctly. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use, only implying 'existing' components.

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