create_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level creation action and does not mention side effects: whether the selected node is converted or copied, whether a parentId is required, what happens to the existing selection, or what the resulting component contains. This is a significant gap for a creation 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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and source condition. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too terse to be complete. It omits essential behavioral distinctions: when fromNodeId is used versus creating a brand-new frame, whether width/height or parentId are required in each mode, and what the tool returns or changes. The close sibling tools amplify the need for richer context.

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 baseline is 3. The prose adds conceptual context ('current selection or a new frame') that loosely maps to fromNodeId, width, and height, but it does not explicitly connect these descriptions to the parameters or clarify which parameters apply to which mode.

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 clear action ('Create') and resource ('reusable component') plus a source condition ('current selection or a new frame'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_component_set or create_component_instance.

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 useful context by naming two invocation modes: converting the current selection or creating a new frame. However, it gives no exclusions or pointers to alternatives, and the sibling list contains several very similar create_component_* tools, so an agent could not confidently route to this tool versus create_component_instance or create_component_set.

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