pcb_create_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action (placing a component) but does not mention potential conflicts like overlapping components, whether it overwrites existing placements, or any permissions required. The lack of details about return values or failure modes reduces transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward action, with no wasted words. The front-loaded structure allows the agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could mention the result (e.g., the component is placed on the board) or post-placement behavior. The high schema coverage somewhat compensates, but the tool's complexity (6 parameters, placement action) warrants a bit more context about the process or constraints.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions already in the schema. It does not explain the coordinate system, units, or rotation direction, which would be beneficial but are already covered in the schema properties.

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 verb '放置' (place) and resource '元件' (component) from library to PCB. It distinguishes from siblings like pcb_move_component, which moves existing components, by specifying '从库中' (from library). This specificity helps the AI agent understand exactly what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_move_component or pcb_select_component. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints about library validation or board state requirements. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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