create_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only states 'Create a new Component entity' and explains the kind tag's filtering purpose; there is no disclosure of idempotency, duplicate handling, required permissions, or side effects. The 'Create' verb is the only behavioral signal.

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 three sentences, starts with the action, and avoids redundancy. The illustrative list of component types and the kind explanation are both useful, with no 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 create tool with 6 fully-described parameters and an output schema, the description adequately conveys the entity concept and purpose. It lacks explicit guidance on edge behaviors (duplicate slugs), but that falls under behavioral transparency; the core completeness for selection and invocation is strong. The examples and kind explanation give the agent enough context to know when to use it and what kind to assign.

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's mention that 'The `kind` tag lets you filter later' adds a small behavioral nuance beyond the schema's enum list, but otherwise doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints already documented in 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?

The description opens with 'Create a new Component entity' – a specific verb+resource pairing. It then defines what a Component is (subsystem, service, API, database, library, tool), which helps distinguish it from sibling entities like create_task and create_repo, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 establishes the tool's scope by defining a Component as any coherent unit of functionality and listing concrete examples. This gives an agent clear context for when creating a component is appropriate, but it doesn't explicitly address when to prefer sibling tools (e.g., create_task for tasks).

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