penpot_add_component_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool clones the shape tree, assigns fresh ids, and maintains a shape-ref link for Penpot recognition. This adds value beyond a simple 'add instance' statement. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or potential side effects (e.g., affecting the main component).

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, behavior, and library usage. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality well but omits details on optional parameters (frameId, parentId) and does not mention return values or error conditions. It feels just adequate but not fully complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant value for libraryFileId, explaining its purpose and source. x and y are implied as position coordinates but lack format details. frameId and parentId are not mentioned at all, despite having defaults. Overall, the description partially compensates for low schema coverage but leaves gaps.

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 specifies the action (place a copy/instance of a component), the resource (existing component on a page), and the result (cloned shape tree with fresh ids linked via shape-ref). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like penpot_create_component (creates a component from shapes) and penpot_clone_shapes (clones arbitrary shapes) by focusing on component instances and mentioning library support.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the libraryFileId parameter (for components from shared-library files) and when to omit it (current file). It references penpot_list_components as a sibling to retrieve library IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like penpot_clone_shapes for non-component shapes.

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