create_component_docs

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, yet it only states that documentation frames are 'generated.' It doesn't disclose whether this mutates the document by inserting new frame nodes, whether frames are placed on the current page or require a selection, whether existing frames get overwritten, or whether the operation is reversible. For a creation tool this leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the verb and resource are front-loaded. The qualifier 'showing all variants, props, and usage' is informative and earns its place by telling the agent what output content to expect.

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 tool is low-complexity (one required param, no output schema, no annotations), so the description covers the basic invocation correctly. But it leaves open where the frames are created, how this differs from sibling documentation/export tools, and what the agent should expect after invocation. These gaps are material given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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%, with componentId documented as 'Component to document,' so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'a component' but adds no format, source, or prerequisite detail beyond the schema. The description doesn't need to compensate for a coverage gap, but it also doesn't add value.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('documentation frames for a component') and enumerates the scope ('all variants, props, and usage'). This clearly states what the tool produces. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like export_component_inventory, create_spec_sheet, or export_design_specs, relying on the word 'frames' to imply in-canvas artifacts.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_component_inventory, export_design_specs, or create_spec_sheet. There are no prerequisites (e.g., component must exist), no usage conditions, and no exclusions. An agent must infer applicability from the name and generic description alone.

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