add_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses dry-run default, per-file plan statuses, skip/overwrite behavior for existing files, force semantics, and explicitly states it 'Never touches app code or secrets-bearing CD workflows.' This is rich behavioral context beyond any schema.

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 dense and front-loaded with the main action, but it is longer than the 'two sentences' ideal. However, every sentence contributes essential information (component taxonomy, dry-run behavior, force semantics, safety boundary). No filler, but a slightly tighter structure would earn a 5.

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 description is fully complete for a complex tool with 5 optional parameters and an output schema. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and safety limitations. Since an output schema exists, not describing return values 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it details the contents of each component (ci, security, etc.), explains auto-detection for starter, describes dry_run behavior and force implications on dirty trees. This goes well beyond the schema property descriptions.

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 action ('Lift a starter's CI/CD layer into an EXISTING repo') and specifies the resource (CI/CD components). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as the 'remediation half of the audit loop' opposite to audit_security/audit_release, and from create_project by noting 'without re-scaffolding.' This meets the 5-level bar for specific verb+resource+scope and sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: after audits diagnose, as the remediation step to install missing files. It also implies when not to use (instead of re-scaffolding with create_project) and names the diagnostic sibling tools. This is clear, contextual usage guidance with exclusions implicit.

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