Batch Add Components

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

The description discloses extra behavioral details beyond annotations: auto-positioning of reference/value fields (with override option) and the return payload structure. Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, so the description adds context without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and efficient in conveying parameter format and return values. No redundant phrases.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on usage context and parameter semantics. It covers the core behavior and return expectations. Minor omissions like error handling or atomicity are not necessary given the annotations and schema.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, the tool description goes further by giving a concrete structure example for the components array and explaining the effect of auto_position_fields. This clarifies optionality and data hierarchy better than the schema alone.

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 'Add' and identifies the resource 'components to a schematic'. It also distinguishes from the sibling add_schematic_component by noting 'far fewer round-trips', making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use by contrasting batch vs single-component calls, explicitly referencing add_schematic_component for smaller operations. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond that, but the context is clear.

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