storybook_create_component

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, but the description does not clarify potential overwrite behavior if a component with the same name exists. It adds that files are written to a configured directory, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling.

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 about 150 words and front-loaded with a clear one-liner. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but still concise. Minor redundancy keeps it from 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?

Given the detailed input schema and output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output. It mentions the generated files and directory, but lacks information on overwriting behavior and error scenarios.

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?

The description repeats parameter details in an Args section, but the input schema already has comprehensive descriptions for each property (name, description, category, props). Since schema coverage is high, the description adds minimal new meaning beyond summarizing.

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 scaffolds a new component with a Storybook story from a natural-language description. It specifies the generated files (component and story) and differentiates from siblings (compose, get, list).

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 the tool is for creating new components, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like storybook_get_component or storybook_list_components. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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