Add Ply components

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that without overwrite an existing folder is kept, that overwrite replaces it after host confirmation, and that Pro names require PLY_LICENSE_KEY. Minor gap: the reference to `--yes` is a CLI flag with no parameter equivalent, which can puzzle an agent reading the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then alternatives, mutation semantics, and auth in a compact block. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; the `ply-ui-cli add --yes` parenthetical is the only slightly noisy element.

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 destructive install tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, this description covers prerequisites, alternatives, mutation risk, auth, and even points at structuredContent fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by explaining the overwrite/confirm interaction and the licenseKey-vs-env preference. It reinforces rather than re-states the schema, though it does not explain cwd or name alias resolution beyond what the schema already says.

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 (install) and resource (named registry components) plus the precondition that ply-ui.json must already exist. It names init_project and update_components as contrast points, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: init_project creates ply-ui.json, update_components refreshes tracked copies, and this tool installs new ones. It also explains when overwrite applies and that hosts confirm before replacing an existing folder.

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