create_instance_from_instance

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior (auto-layout handling, the parentId alias, index-based insertion), but is silent on permissions, whether the new node adopts overrides/slot content, and the auto-layout interaction with ignoreAutoLayout and the sizing params.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds distinct information. There is no redundant filler; it could be marginally tighter but nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tricky placement semantics but omits the layout-sizing and ignoreAutoLayout parameters and any safety/return context. Adequate minimum, with visible 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 33%, so the description has to compensate, and it usefully explains parentNodeId/parentId aliasing plus the x/y-vs-index rule. It says nothing about ignoreAutoLayout or layoutSizingVertical/Horizontal (FIXED|HUG|FILL), leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ("create a new instance") and pins the source precisely ("whatever main component an existing instance points at"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling factories create_instance_from_component_key and create_instance_from_set_key without needing to name them.

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 context: pass parentNodeId/parentId to place it into a frame, stack, or slot, and omit x/y and use index inside auto layout. This is real 'how/when' guidance, but it never names an alternative tool or states exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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