create_component_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait: the instance retains a link to the main component. However, it does not mention side effects, coordinate defaults, parent placement behavior, or what happens if the componentId is invalid.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and key behavioral nuance with no filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema fully documents parameters, and the description is sufficient for a simple creation call. Still, with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, an agent gets only minimal context about expected behavior, placement defaults, or return value.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that componentId refers to a master component; this meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter meaning further.

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 ('Instantiate') and resource ('reusable component instance'), and clearly distinguishes this from master-component creation by mentioning 'master component ID' and 'retaining link to the main component'. An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like create_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?

The usage is implied: you use this when you have a master component ID and want a linked instance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as create_component for creating a new master component.

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