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 the crucial unannotated behavior: the default call is a no-write dry run that enumerates every file it would create or update. It also discloses the skip-existing-edits behavior and the force override, which an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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 core action and immediately followed by the safety-critical dry-run requirement. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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, idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it safely: default dry-run behavior, what the dry run returns, when to confirm, and how force interacts with edited files. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding workflow semantics the schema lacks, namely that confirm should only be set after a human has reviewed the dry-run output. Force is explained in both places consistently, with the description framing it as opt-in only when the user asks.

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 their requirements into this app) plus a secondary behavior (updates installed components to this version). This is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools 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 workflow: first call is a dry run that writes nothing, show the results to the person, and only re-invoke with confirm: true after they agree. It also states the exclusion condition for force (developer-edited files are skipped unless force is true).

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