manage_component

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already indicates mutation, and the description adds the specific mutation behaviors (add/remove) and clarifies the type format (short name or namespace). It does not describe side effects but provides sufficient behavioral detail for a simple component operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. The constraints and examples are directly embedded without fluff.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action constraints and type formats. The only missing detail is the semantics of 'path', but given the sibling tool context and simplicity, the description is largely complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'action' and 'type' parameters in detail, but does not clarify the 'path' parameter. With 3 required params and only 2 effectively documented in the description, it is partially compensating but leaves a gap.

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 'Add or remove a component' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly excluding 'enable'/'disable' and directing users to set_property for that use case.

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?

It explicitly states the allowed actions ('add' or 'remove' ONLY) and provides an explicit when-not-to-use scenario (enable/disable) with a named alternative tool (set_property). This gives clear usage guidance.

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