Create container COMP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it creates one empty COMP, tiles it into the parent grid avoiding existing siblings, and returns node details. It does not contradict annotations and gives useful context about placement and return values, though it stops short of discussing permissions or undo behavior.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes value: creation, positioning, type semantics, return values, and usage alternative. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool's moderate complexity (0 required params, full schema coverage, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it explains what it creates, where, how it positions it, what it returns, and when to choose another tool. It does not mention whether parent_path must pre-exist, but that is a minor gap for a simple creation tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds a bit of semantic nuance by clarifying that comp_type selects between Container COMP (2D panel) and Base COMP, but it mostly restates what the schema already provides. This is an adequate but not enhanced parameter explanation.

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 states 'Create one empty COMP under parent_path', uses a specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'higher-level Layer 1 tool' for fully built networks. It also mentions the return values (path, type, name), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's primary scope.

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 gives a clear usage context: create an empty shell to hold a visual system, tiling it into the network grid clear of siblings. It explicitly advises using a higher-level Layer 1 tool when a fully built, wired network is desired, which is a clear exclusion, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling.

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