Batch Edit Schematic Components

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

Annotations already mark destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: each entry is applied individually via the single-component editor, and results are returned as per-reference updated/errors, implying partial failure semantics.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every part earns its place. The map structure explanation and return behavior are packed efficiently without redundancy.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it explains the batch nature, the structure of the components parameter, how each edit is applied, and what is returned. No critical gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 descriptions cover both parameters, but the description goes further by giving a concrete map structure example ({reference: {value?, footprint?, newReference?, ...}}) and explaining how entries are applied. This enriches the abstract 'Map of reference -> fields to change'.

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 states 'Edit multiple existing components in one call' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes from single-component editing and other batch operations like batch_move_components by focusing on property edits (value, footprint, reference) via a map.

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 use when multiple components need property edits in one operation, and clarifies that each entry goes through the single-component editor. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use batch_move_components), but the context is clear for most users.

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