add_component

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

The annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it automatically resolves and installs dependencies, and it exposes a dry-run mode that avoids making changes. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and object, and every sentence earns its place: install behavior, dependency handling, and dry-run usage. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant 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?

For a mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, dependency resolution, and safe preview option. It could be slightly more explicit that the caller must provide at least one of name, names, or group, since none of those parameters is marked required in the 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%, so each parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds only general context ('one or more', dryRun preview purpose) rather than meaningfully enriching the parameter semantics beyond the structured definitions.

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 ('Install'), names the exact resource ('shadcn/ui components'), and scopes it to the current project. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_components, remove_component, and get_component_info, and it adds the important nuance that dependencies are resolved automatically.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use the tool: to install shadcn/ui components into the current project. It also gives explicit guidance for the dryRun=true preview path. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly saying when not to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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