create_instance_from_component_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful conditional behavior (auto-layout positioning requires parentNodeId+index, freeform requires x/y), which is real context. But it says nothing about what the created instance returns, permission/auth needs, or how ignoreAutoLayout and layout sizing interact.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the placement caveat. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 placement adequately but leaves auto-layout option parameters (ignoreAutoLayout, layoutSizing*) unexplained. An agent can likely call it, but with avoidable guesswork on the layout-related fields.

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?

Coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by clarifying the intended use of parentNodeId, index, x, and y relative to parent type. The remaining four parameters (componentKey semantics, ignoreAutoLayout, layoutSizingVertical/Horizontal) are left undocumented beyond the two enum hints in the schema.

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 an instance from a library component key') and the placement target (inside the target frame/parent). The 'from component key' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like create_instance_from_set_key and create_instance_from_instance, though it never names them 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 genuinely actionable invocation guidance: use parentNodeId + index for auto-layout stacks, omit x/y unless the parent is freeform. However, it offers no guidance about when to choose this tool versus sibling instance-creation tools, so usage context is only implied.

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