component_insert

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the mutation/safety profile. The description adds context about the pinned system and slot/variant overrides, but it does not disclose effects like expectedRevision enforcement, insertion behavior relative to parentId, or what happens to existing content.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and optional overrides are front-loaded, and the 'Read the system' instruction is a useful, non-redundant addition.

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?

There is no output schema, the operation is destructive, and the parameter surface is large. The description does not mention return values, required fields, positioning, or revision handling, so an agent lacks enough context to call the tool correctly and safely.

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 0%, and the description only hints at componentId, slots, and variant. With 11 parameters and 6 required fields, it leaves expectedRevision, operationId, actor, pageId, x/y, and parentId semantically unexplained.

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 ('Insert') and a specific resource ('native editable component from the document's pinned system'), and it names the key optional behaviors ('variant and text/image slot overrides'). This clearly differentiates the operation from the generic design_system_* and document_* siblings.

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 only usage guidance is 'Read the system to discover component and slot IDs,' which is a useful prerequisite but not an explicit when-to-use statement. It does not name alternatives or state when this tool should be preferred over related tools like design_system_apply.

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