create_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that the definition is empty, that one instance is placed, and that all lengths/coordinates are in metres, which adds unit context. However, it omits permission requirements, side effects on model state, behavior on name collision, and whether the component definition is added to a library.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the core action, the return values, and the unit convention. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, return values, and units. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance against siblings and does not fully compensate for the undocumented 'description' parameter, leaving some gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 67%, with the 'description' parameter undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds important unit information ('metres') that applies to the origin coordinates, but it does not clarify the purpose or expected format of the optional 'description' parameter beyond what its name implies.

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 ('Create') and resource ('component definition'), plus the side effect of placing one instance. It implicitly distinguishes itself from 'place_component' by specifying a new empty definition, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or rule out related siblings like create_group or create_box.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'place_component' (for existing components), 'create_group' (for non-component groups), or any prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the tool's name and purpose.

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