pvsyst_create_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the tool validates structure, required fields and 'known hazardous numeric values,' and honestly bounds the guarantee ('only a referencing simulation verifies physics'). It does not disclose what happens on filename collision, whether an existing component is overwritten, or what is returned — gaps that matter for a no-annotation mutation tool.

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 tight sentences with a front-loaded category tag and the core action first; the validation caveat and the binary-PAN exception follow logically. No filler or restated title.

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 are no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only documentation for a 3-parameter file-creating mutation, and it omits return value/identifier, filename handling, and failure modes. What it does cover (format, validation scope, alternative route) is solid but not sufficient on its own.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it names the accepted component_type values (PAN/OND/BTR/GEN) and specifies that content is full UTF-8 PVObject_ text. However, filename — the third required parameter — is never explained (path basis, extension, overwrite behavior), leaving a required input undefined in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb + resource ('Create a NEW PAN/OND/BTR/GEN') and pins the input format precisely ('complete UTF-8 PVObject_ text in the workspace without a template'). It explicitly separates itself from pvsyst_copy_component for legacy binary PAN, though it does not distinguish itself from the similarly-scoped sibling pvsyst_build_sourced_component.

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 states a concrete precondition (content must be 'complete' UTF-8 PVObject_ text) and an explicit exclusion with an alternative: 'Legacy binary PAN must be imported with pvsyst_copy_component instead.' It stops short of saying when to prefer this over creating via template/build_sourced_component, so a small inference remains.

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