add_component_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the type-to-node binding semantics (TEXT controls characters, BOOLEAN visibility, INSTANCE_SWAP the main component of a nested instance), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about side effects, whether adding a duplicate property name errors, permission requirements, or what the response looks like.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the type-specific binding rules follow immediately. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It explains the operation and the meaning of the optional binding well, but omits error conditions, return shape, and prerequisites for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, and the enum on 'type' is captured there. The description reinforces the type/target pairing semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a component property') and immediately constrains the domain: only TEXT, BOOLEAN or INSTANCE_SWAP on a COMPONENT or COMPONENT_SET. No sibling tool performs this operation, so the agent can identify it unambiguously from the name plus first sentence.

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 optional child-node linkage is described ('Optionally link it to a child node'), which implies the main use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisite such as the target must be a component rather than an instance, and no note on when to omit targetNodeId.

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