Replace Schematic Component

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

With destructiveHint already indicating a destructive operation, the description adds useful context: it preserves position, rotation, and field values (Value/Footprint/custom), and it returns new pin positions. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying what remains unchanged and what output to expect.

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, front-loaded with the action, includes an illustrative example, and packs essential details (preservation, optional override, return value) without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (4 parameters, output schema, destructive nature), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what is preserved, optional rotation override, and return value. The output schema handles return specifics, so this is sufficient. Minor gaps like error conditions or impact on connectivity are not critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter semantics (e.g., newRotation overrides rotation, preserving field values) but does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already explains. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a specific action ('Replace a placed component's symbol') with a concrete example ('Device:R -> Device:R_Potentiometer'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like place_component, edit_component, or set_footprint_type. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous and informative.

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 this tool: when you want to change a component's symbol while preserving its position, rotation, and field values. It also notes the optional newRotation override, which suggests when rotation is also needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use rotate_component if only rotation is needed'.

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