gh_add_component

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

The annotations already signal that this is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), and the description's 'active canvas' phrasing adds a small amount of placement context. However, it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or requirements such as the component needing to be installed or known, beyond what the annotation already implies.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence. Every word carries meaning and there is no redundant or generic filler.

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 simple insert operation with a clear schema and output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the action and target surface. It could additionally note behavior on invalid names or coordinate units, but these are minor for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description itself adds no parameter meaning. The nested input schema does explain that x/y are canvas coordinates and name is the component nickname or full name, which covers most of the semantic burden. Since the computed schema description coverage is 0%, this is a partial gap, but the actual schema text prevents serious ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Drop') and identifies the resource ('a Grasshopper component') and destination ('the active canvas'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools that search, connect, or delete components. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, so it misses the top tier.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like gh_place_slider, gh_components_search, or gh_connect_components. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision context are provided, so an agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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