create_ui_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states 'create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this creates files on disk, what permissions are needed, whether it overwrites existing components, or what the expected output/result looks like. The description is too brief to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is extremely concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient for quick understanding despite its brevity.

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 tool that creates UI components with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'generating a UI component' actually means in practice - whether it creates template files, generates code, modifies configuration, or produces some other output. The agent needs more context about what this creation operation entails and what results to expect.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters including the enum values for component_type, format requirements for component_name, and conditional behavior for with_js.

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 clearly states the action ('Сгенерировать' - Generate/Create) and the resource ('UI-компонент Webasyst 2.0'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_widget' or 'create_site_widget', which might create confusion about when to use this specific tool versus other UI creation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that create UI elements (create_widget, create_site_widget, create_site_block), there's no indication of what distinguishes this UI component creation from those other tools or when this specific tool should be selected.

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