create_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses auto-layout interaction behavior (coordinate and sizing delegation) that would not be obvious otherwise, but omits other behavioral facts: default placement when x/y are omitted, whether the component lands on the current page, and whether parameters like ignoreAutoLayout override the stated rules.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the conditional rules. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trickiest geometric/auto-layout semantics well but is not complete: it omits behavior for ignoreAutoLayout and the two layoutSizing enums, and says nothing about what is returned or where the component is placed by default.

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 only 20% and there are 10 parameters, so the description should compensate. It does a good job on the interaction-heavy params (parentNodeId, x/y, index, width/height) but leaves name, ignoreAutoLayout, layoutSizingVertical and layoutSizingHorizontal entirely undocumented, and never clarifies how ignoreAutoLayout relates to the 'omit x/y inside auto layout' rule.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new empty component'), and the qualifier 'empty' usefully distinguishes it from the sibling create_component_from_node, which builds a component from an existing node. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Gives solid conditional guidance on how to use the tool (pass parentNodeId to insert into a frame/stack/slot; omit x/y inside auto layout; omit width/height unless fixed). However it never says when to choose this over alternatives like create_component_from_node or create_component_slot, so the when-to-use dimension is only implied.

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