Generate LWC from Requirements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds behavior beyond that: it returns generated code for review, not a deployment. This clarifies that no org modification occurs, which is useful context not fully captured by annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences stating purpose and workflow, followed by a compact parameter list. It avoids fluff, but the parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description tells the agent the return type (generated code scaffold for HTML, JS, CSS, meta XML) and that it's for review before deployment. This is sufficient for a non-mutating generation tool, though a bit more detail on return format would be helpful.

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 100%, and the description's parameter list largely restates the schema (e.g., 'componentName: LWC component name in camelCase'). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool generates a complete LWC component scaffold (HTML, JS, CSS, meta XML) from plain-English requirements. This specific verb+resource+output combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_lwc or sf_guide_lwc_accessibility.

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 explicitly says the generated code is for review before deploying with sf_create_lwc, which gives a clear workflow context. It implies use when you have requirements descriptions, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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