create_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. The only behavioral hint is the dependency on lookup_part for URLs, which is more of a usage guideline than a behavioral trait.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise prerequisite and a comprehensive category list. While the category list is long, it provides necessary terminology and every sentence earns its place without excessive fluff.

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 complex tool with 18 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies essential context (purpose, prerequisite, categories) but omits information about success/failure behavior, return values, and how to use nested structures like custom_svg or category_specs. The schema covers parameter descriptions, so it is minimally viable but with notable gaps.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating the valid categories (since category has no enum in the schema) and directing users to lookup_part for sourcing img_url and datasheet_url, which clarifies how to fill those parameters.

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's primary action ('Create a component') and resource ('in the Splice parts database'), and specifies what is included ('full specs, images, and pin labels'). This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_cable and create_project, which target different entities.

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 instructs users to 'Use lookup_part first to get image/datasheet URLs', providing a clear prerequisite and implying a workflow. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or compare to alternative creation tools, but the context is otherwise clear.

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