add_component

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

Given no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions runtime attachment, optional socketing and transforms, but omits side effects (e.g., does it overwrite? fail conditions?), permission needs, or return behavior. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence, 25 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.

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, a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main action and optional features but lacks details on defaults (e.g., auto-naming), failure modes, and behavior of attach_to and socket parameters. Adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'optionally socketed and transformed relative to a parent component' corresponds to socket and relative_transform, but no deeper semantics are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (attach), the resource (component to actor), the context (runtime, optionally socketed and transformed), and is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on inspection, deletion, or bulk operations.

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 implies the tool is for adding components at runtime with optional socketing and transforms, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, the narrow purpose and lack of similar sibling tools make the guidance clear enough.

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