create_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether creating a component is destructive, reversible, or requires existing bodies. The simple action is stated without any side effects or prerequisites.

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 conveying the essential information without any redundant or verbose language. Every word is functional.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should cover more aspects like name validation, the grouping mechanism, and subsequent operations. As is, it leaves significant gaps for a tool with one required parameter and no additional structured information.

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 one parameter 'name' with no description. The description adds meaning by indicating it is a 'named component' and giving an example ('water_tank'). This provides context beyond the schema, though more detail on name constraints would improve it.

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?

Clearly states the action (create) and resource (component) with a purpose (to group bodies) and an example ('water_tank'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_box or create_cylinder, which create geometric primitives instead of groupings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The list of sibling tools is provided via context, but the description itself lacks any conditions for use or disclaimers about when not to use it.

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