create_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. It discloses that the tool creates an empty component and returns its ID, which is useful, but it omits details like write permissions, document mutation side effects, failure behavior, and relationship to current selection. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition of structured fields.

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 large parameter set and no output schema, the description covers the core outcome (creation), return value (ID), and cross-tool parameter reference. It doesn't detail placement or parent handling, but the schema covers the parameters, and the description provides sufficient context for a create 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful cross-reference to create_frame for Auto Layout parameters, but it does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new empty component'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_component_instance and create_component_from_node by emphasizing 'empty' and 'new'. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 clarifies usage by noting the same Auto Layout parameters as create_frame and the returned ID's utility as a parentId or for create_component_instance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over create_frame or create_component_from_node, nor does it provide exclusions.

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