Create Component

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals a mutation, and the description is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the act of creation — no note on duplicate-name handling, permissions, or side effects on the queue's component list.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and keeps the domain definition tight. The Russian parenthetical ('компонент') and the trailing lead note are marginal additions but do not bloat the description.

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?

With 5 parameters all documented in the schema, an output schema present, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the structured context is strong, so a short description is acceptable. The clear gaps are the absence of sibling routing (when to use component_update instead) and any disclosure of creation constraints such as duplicate names.

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%, with each parameter individually explained (e.g., lead's login/uid format, assign_auto's create default, description clearing behavior), so the schema carries the load. The description's only parameter note, '`lead` is a user login', merely restates what the lead schema description already says.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a component ... in a Yandex Tracker queue' and defines the domain concept ('a label grouping the queue's issues by product, process or owner'), which separates it from sibling operations like component_update, component_delete, and component_get. The verb 'Create' plus the container context leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create' and the component definition; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over component_update or component_delete, and no exclusions. The parameter descriptions hint at update semantics ('on update, unchanged', 'clear_lead'), which subtly distinguishes create from update, but the description itself gives no routing guidance.

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