aia_add_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits like whether the .aia file is modified, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, or how duplicate names are handled. The description only restates the high-level action ('Add a UI component') and does not reveal these side effects or constraints.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and then notes the optional nesting behavior. It contains no filler or extraneous words.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description and schema together document what parameters exist, but they do not clarify the operational impact on the .aia file, prerequisites like an existing screen, error behavior, or what constitutes a successful result. A more complete description would mention that it modifies a project file and requires valid component types and a writable path.

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 83%, so the existing parameter descriptions already document most inputs. The description adds minor context by mentioning 'parent arrangement/component', which reinforces the purpose of parent_name, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for other parameters like path, type, or props_json.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Add a UI component to a screen'. It also conveys the optional nesting behavior, which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like aia_add_screen (adds a screen) and aia_set_property (modifies existing properties). An agent can tell what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 usage context: use this when you need to place a new UI component on a screen, optionally inside a parent component. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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