create_component_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Instantiate' and does not explain that this creates a linked instance, where the instance is placed, or what errors can occur. The description is accurate but minimally transparent.

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?

Four words, no filler, and the key constraint 'existing' is front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably too terse to carry the behavioral context needed.

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?

A moderate three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a one-line purpose statement. The description omits return value, default parent behavior, and linking semantics, leaving important context for the agent to guess.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents componentId, parentId, and overrides with examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema is doing the work.

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 the specific verb 'Instantiate' and names the resource 'an existing component', so the action is clear and distinct from creating a new component. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools or edge cases, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over create_component, duplicate_node, or swap_component, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the implied requirement that the component already exists. An agent must infer usage context from the schema and the long sibling list.

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