set_instance_overrides

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the effects: 'Target instances will be swapped to the source component and all copied override properties will be applied.' This communicates the mutation adequately, though it could mention side effects or reversibility.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second elaborates the effect. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description covers input (applies overrides to selected instances) and effect (swap and apply properties). It does not discuss return values or error conditions, but for a mutation tool of this complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter information beyond what is in the schema (the schema already notes that targetNodeIds uses currently selected instances). No extra semantic value is provided.

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 ('Apply') and clearly identifies the resources ('previously copied overrides' to 'selected component instances'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on applying overrides, which is distinct from other mutation tools like set_text_content or clone_node.

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 clear context: it applies copied overrides to target instances. It implies a prerequisite (prior copy operation) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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