create_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the creation and placement behavior and return values. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like unique name requirements, undo behavior, or permission needs, which would be helpful for a creation tool.

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 one sentence plus a return statement, front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of creating a component and placing an instance, the description covers the basic flow and return values. However, it lacks details about where the component definition is stored, whether the instance is placed at the origin or relative to the origin parameter, and any constraints on the name (e.g., uniqueness).

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 67% (name and origin have descriptions, description parameter has none). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify the missing schema description for the 'description' parameter or elaborate on the format of 'origin'.

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 specifies the action (create) and resource (new empty component definition) with a side effect of placing one instance. It explicitly states the return values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'place_component' that place existing components.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that to place an existing component, one should use 'place_component' instead. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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