cst_new_component_tool

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully notes the component is '(empty)' and lives in the model tree, but says nothing about whether a project must already be open, whether names must be unique, whether the operation is undoable, or what side effects occur. Significant behavioral gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Sized appropriately for the tool's simplicity, though it leaves room to spend words on the missing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and only one parameter is involved. However, with no annotations and a mutating operation, the description should address project-state prerequisites and how the new component relates to solids; as written, gaps remain that an agent would have to discover by trial.

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?

There is one required parameter ('name') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its format, or naming constraints. The parameter's meaning is somewhat self-evident, but the description adds no semantics beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new (empty) component in the model tree'), which is enough to separate it from create_solid-style siblings and from cst_move_solid_to_component_tool. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from sibling tools, so it lands just below the top band.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool to reach for before populating a tree component, and there is no mention of what state the project must be in.

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