Create Visualforce Component

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key constraint that markup must include an <apex:component> tag, but does not disclose what happens if the component already exists, permission needs, or deployment effects—information that would improve transparency beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and method, the second covers the required input and usage pattern. Every sentence earns its place, making this a model of conciseness.

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 create operation, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is created, the API used, required content constraints, and how the result is used. It lacks explicit conflict behavior and prerequisites, but the annotations compensate slightly, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps the required params (componentName, label, content) to natural-language terms but does not elaborate on apiVersion or description, which are already self-explanatory in the schema. It adds minimal semantic value beyond 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Creates') and identifies the exact resource ('reusable Visualforce component (ApexComponent)') via the Metadata API. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_create_visualforce_page by emphasizing reusability and inclusion syntax, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining that components can be included in Visualforce pages, which indicates the use case for reusable UI fragments. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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