Add Schematic Component

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds value by explaining the symbol format, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the schematic must be open, whether changes are saved immediately, or any side effects on existing components. No contradiction with 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 two concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second provides a critical formatting rule with examples. No filler or redundant content.

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 well-covered schema and output schema present, the description is sufficient for a basic add operation. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not clarify potential ambiguity with sibling tools like 'batch_add_components' or 'place_component,' leaving some contextual gaps.

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 having a description. The tool description largely repeats the 'symbol' parameter format already in the schema, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a component to the schematic.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from board-level tools like 'place_component' and from other schematic tools like 'add_schematic_wire.'

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 implies usage (adding a component to a schematic) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'batch_add_components' for multiple components or 'place_component' for board placement. It offers no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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