lib_auto_link_3d_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it describes enumerating every footprint, scanning .step/.stp files, case-insensitive stem matching, and the caveat that offsets/rotations are not set. It does not specify whether existing model links are overwritten or whether special permissions are required.

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 front-loaded and clearly structured with Args and Returns sections. The Returns section is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but it is not excessive.

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?

For a batch mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the matching algorithm, required parameters, caveat, and return shape. The remaining gap is that it does not state what happens to pre-existing model links or whether the operation requires write permissions.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining model_dir as the folder containing .step/.stp files and library_path as an optional .PcbLib to focus first, otherwise using the focused document.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: batch-link STEP models to footprints by matching file names. It clearly distinguishes this batch auto-linking operation from the sibling single-link tool lib_link_3d_model.

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 makes the use case clear: batch-link models by filename across a PcbLib, optionally focusing on a provided library path. It references lib_link_3d_model as the basis, implying the relationship, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus manual or single linking.

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