Set component attribute

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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the precondition that the component is selected and shows common fields, but does not disclose side effects on the simulation, reversibility, or what response to expect.

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 opening sentence is specific and front-loaded, and the Args block is compact. Some argument information is redundant with the schema, and response_format has no explanatory detail, but there is no wasted prose.

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?

This is minimally usable for a straightforward setter tool, but it does not describe the response/confirmation behavior, what happens if the component_id is invalid, or how 'selected component' relates to component_id. No output schema compensates for these gaps.

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 already describes name, value, and response_format; the Args list mostly restates those descriptions without adding new meaning. component_id remains thinly documented in both the schema and the description, relying on the parameter name and 'selected component' wording for interpretation.

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 lead sentence names a concrete action ('Change'), the target ('inspector field on a selected component'), and common fields like resistance, color, and value. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as add, delete, move, or connect, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 this tool is used when an inspector field on a component needs modification. It does not state when to prefer another tool, when not to use this one, or mention prerequisites like the component needing to be selected or identified first.

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