create_component

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'replaced in place' to confirm mutation. However, no additional behavioral context is given (e.g., effect on child nodes, undoability, persistence). Meets minimum but doesn't enrich beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action and result. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple conversion tool with no output schema, the description is functionally complete. However, given the large number of siblings (73), additional context about relationships (e.g., to detach_instance) would improve completeness.

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 describes both parameters with full coverage (100%). Description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., does not explain colon format for nodeId). Baseline score applies as schema already provides sufficient detail.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('convert'), the resource ('existing FRAME node'), and the result ('into a reusable COMPONENT'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_frame (creates new) and clone_node (duplicates).

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?

Description implies using this tool when you have a frame to convert to a component, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like detach_instance or swap_component. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria provided.

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