Edit Component

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) but adds no new behavioral context beyond what the annotations and name already convey. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or that the board becomes dirty.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant or filler 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?

The description, combined with a fully described schema and annotations, is sufficient for a simple editing tool. It clearly identifies the resource and action, and the output schema is present, so return values do not need to be explained.

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?

The schema fully describes all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond listing three of the four properties (reference, value, footprint) and omits newReference, which could be seen as a minor gap but does not reduce the score below baseline.

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 tool edits properties of an existing PCB component, naming the specific editable attributes (reference, value, footprint). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_component or move_component.

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 it is for modifying existing components but does not explicitly differentiate it from overlapping siblings such as set_footprint_type or edit_schematic_component. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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