Enrich Datasheets

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable specifics: it only modifies symbols where the Datasheet field is '~' or empty, constructs the URL directly without API/internet, and supports dry_run to avoid writes. This goes beyond the structured hints by detailing the exact mutation conditions and non-network operation.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, bullet-pointed conditions, a code block for the URL format, and a final usage tip. It is concise and each sentence adds value, including the note about no API key and where the URL is visible. The dry_run tip is practical and does not feel redundant despite appearing in the schema.

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 tool's simplicity and the rich annotations/output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, the prerequisites, exact behavior, side effects, and the safe dry-run mode. No critical information is missing, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-described (path and dry_run with default). The description adds minimal extra parameter semantics beyond restating the dry_run usage. The bullet points about LCSC properties are behavioral context, not parameter explanations, so a baseline 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Fill in missing Datasheet URLs in a KiCAD schematic using LCSC part numbers.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_datasheet_url by focusing on updating the schematic, not just fetching a URL. The exact conditions and URL format are provided, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: for every placed symbol with an LCSC property and missing/empty Datasheet field. It also mentions the dry_run option for previewing changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for similar tasks (e.g., get_datasheet_url) or state when not to use it, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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