Create a design component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, failure modes, or how the 'active host adapter' behaves. It also omits what happens to existing components or what the response looks like, leaving critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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?

The description is a single terse sentence with no redundant words, which is concise in length. However, it is so minimal that it lacks informative structure; there is no separation of core purpose from additional constraints or context. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified, falling between acceptable conciseness and insufficient detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—7 parameters, a nested object, two enums, and no output schema—the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters like fill, host, kind, text, width, and height, does not describe the returned value or errors, and does not clarify the meaning of 'active host adapter.' An agent would have almost no guidance on how to construct a valid call.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description provides no parameter explanations whatsoever. Despite seven parameters including a nested fill object and enums for host and kind, the description does not even mention that a name is required, nor does it clarify the meaning or constraints of any parameter. The agent is left entirely to the schema's raw types and defaults.

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 states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('component or symbol'), and adds context with 'through the active host adapter.' It distinguishes itself from sibling create_screen, though 'component or symbol' is somewhat generic and the adapter concept is not elaborated. Still, it conveys the core action without being a tautology.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like create_screen or update_selection. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The phrase 'active host adapter' hints at a dependency but does not explain how or when that matters, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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