Add Component 3d Model

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

Given annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds useful context: 'live via the KiCAD IPC API (changes appear instantly, no file conflicts).' It also specifies the target must be 'PLACED footprints,' which is critical behavioral information not present in annotations. It does not contradict 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?

The description is only two sentences, with the primary action and scope in the first sentence, and usage guidance in the second. No filler or 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?

With a rich schema and output schema present, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and how it behaves (live updates, no file conflicts). It also mentions the open-board context, which is important for statefulness. Nothing meaningful is missing.

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%, with every parameter (scale, offset, rotate, replace, modelPath, reference) having a clear description. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It reinforces that reference can be '*', but this is already in the 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Attach' and identifies the resource: '3D model to one or more PLACED footprints on the open board.' It distinguishes from sibling tool by stating 'for a library .kicad_mod use add_footprint_3d_model.' This clearly defines its scope and differentiates it from the library-focused sibling.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this for components already on the PCB' and provides the alternative: 'for a library .kicad_mod use add_footprint_3d_model.' This directly guides the agent on tool selection versus a closely related tool.

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