Create Component

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

The description discloses that the tool transforms a frame into a main component, but it does not detail side effects or prerequisites (e.g., that the frame is modified in place, or that nodeName must match exactly). The annotation openWorldHint is present, but the description adds minimal context beyond that; 'convert' implies a state change, yet the potential destructive nature is not clarified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema covers parameter details while an output schema exists (likely describing the created component). The description is sufficient for the core action, though it could mention the need to fetch nodeName via node_info, but that is already captured in the schema, so the description remains 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters (nodeId and nodeName) are fully described in the input schema, including the requirement that nodeName be passed verbatim from node_info. The description itself adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 'Convert an existing frame into a main component' clearly states the action (convert), the resource (existing frame), and the result (main component). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_instance (which creates an instance) and create_component_set (which creates a set).

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 implies usage when there is an existing frame to convert, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest related tools, but no direct comparison is made, so guidance is only implied.

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