add_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the tool resolves transitive dependencies from a registry (implying external lookup), validates renderer compatibility, and persists the resolved result to the sketch file rather than forming a transient reference. What it does not cover is failure behavior — whether an incompatible renderer or unresolvable component aborts cleanly or leaves a partial write — and whether the operation is idempotent.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds information (resolution scope, validation step, persistence target). No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the resolution scope, and the persistence side effect, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is outcome information — what is returned on success and how validation failures surface — but with no output schema this is a modest omission.

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 all three parameters including the version-range default are already documented. The description adds conceptual context (component resolution spans transitive deps, so the version range has broader effect than a single package) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Add a component dependency to an existing sketch") and then enumerates the mechanism: registry resolution of transitive dependencies, renderer compatibility validation, and writing the resolved form to the sketch file. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like remove_component or list_components, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for installing a component into a sketch, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., sketch must exist and be open), and no routing to alternatives such as list_components for discovery before adding.

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