Add components

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material behavior the annotations cannot: the default call is a non-writing dry run, edited files are skipped, and installed components are also updated. This clarifies exactly what gets destroyed or skipped, with no contradiction of the annotation profile.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the dry-run default and the human-approval gate, then the force exception, then the version-update side effect. No filler; every clause conveys a distinct rule.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a dry run returns (every file it would create or update) and the exact gating sequence for the real write. Nothing needed to invoke 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% and each parameter has its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the sequencing semantics that the schema alone lacks, namely that confirm is the second step after presenting the dry run and that force is opt-in for edited files, while the components enum is left entirely to the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Copies components, and what they require, into this app', plus the secondary behavior of updating installed components to this version. This is clearly distinguishable from list_components, get_component, and project_status.

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?

Gives an explicit operating protocol: without confirm it is a dry run that writes nothing, show the result to the person, and only re-call with confirm: true once they agree. It also states the force condition (edited files skipped unless force is true), so when-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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