create_component_instance

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden and does disclose the non-obvious auto-layout interaction (omit x/y, use index). However, it says nothing about what happens on invalid componentId, whether overrides carry over, or the mutation's side effects, which matters for a create 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the placement rules. No filler, though the sentence could be marginally denser.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trickiest placement semantics but leaves several parameters and all failure/return behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains parentNodeId, x/y, and index usage well, but ignoreAutoLayout and the two layoutSizing parameters go undocumented anywhere, so the compensation is partial.

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 with a scope qualifier ('local component'), which implicitly separates it from key-based siblings like create_instance_from_component_key and create_instance_from_set_key. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly.

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 clear conditional guidance: pass parentNodeId to insert into a frame, auto-layout stack, or slot, and inside auto layout omit x/y and use index. This is real when/how routing, though it addresses parameter combinations more than choosing this tool over a sibling.

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