Create a new component

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

The description discloses a specific failure mode ('Fails with DUPLICATE_ID if the id already exists') and implies a persistent write operation. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response behavior, leaving a meaningful transparency gap for a mutation 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. Critical information is front-loaded: the action, the duplicate-failure condition, the alternative tool, and the required pre-check. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's 13 parameters, heavy nesting, and no output schema, the description only covers duplicate handling and pre-checks. It omits basic guidance on required fields beyond id/name, the meaning of nested structures, and what a successful or failed response contains. For a tool this complex, the description is not complete enough.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate for the 13 parameters. It only implicitly clarifies that 'id' must be unique and new; it provides no guidance on name, tags, rules, design, implementations, or other complex nested fields. The schema provides names and types, but the description adds almost no semantic value for the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register a brand-new design component.' It clearly distinguishes itself from registry_update_component by stating the id-exists condition and naming the alternative tool, so an agent can select correctly without inspecting all siblings.

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 explicit usage guidance: use registry_update_component when the id already exists, and only create when registry_find_component and registry_find_by_design_reference confirm no equivalent component exists. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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