add_component

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so a mutation is expected; the description does not contradict this. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the tool returns resolved parameters, inputs, states with units, port paths, and pre-flight issues including unconnected ports until connected. This helps the agent understand side effects and follow-up 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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by one return-value sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and the primary action is front-loaded. There is no filler, redundancy, or schema repetition.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return behavior well. It also highlights a meaningful behavioral detail about pre-flight port issues. It falls short only in not providing usage guidance or alternative routing, but nothing critical is missing for a competent agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already documents four of five parameters clearly. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning, only referencing 'resolved parameters' in the return value. system_id is the only undocumented parameter, but its purpose is obvious from its name and the sibling context.

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: 'Add a component instance to a system.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_component, list_components, and remove_component. The additional return-value sentence reinforces what the tool accomplishes without muddying its purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_system, describe_component, or set_values. The context is implied only by the verb 'add,' leaving the agent to infer that this is the right tool for inserting a component instance into an existing system. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection hints.

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