lib_create_passive_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the internal composition, that pin 1 is left and pin 2 right, and that primitives are emitted in raw mils to preserve sub-100-mil detail. It omits operational facts an agent would want for a write operation — whether a library must be open/current, what happens if the symbol name already exists, and whether it is destructive.

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 core action and its payoff are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the glyph list and composition note, with args in a scannable block. No sentence is filler, even the parenthetical about raw mils carries information.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no annotations but an output schema (so return values need no prose), the description covers purpose, kinds, pin orientation and composition. The remaining gap is preconditions — current library, overwrite behavior — which matter for a symbol-creating call.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: name with an example, kind with the full enum plus accepted aliases (r/c/cap_pol/electrolytic/cp/l/d/xtal/f), designator_prefix with its defaulting rule, and description. That fully covers all four parameters; only naming conventions for 'name' are left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a standard 2-pin PASSIVE symbol') plus the exact set of supported passives, and explicitly names the underlying primitives it composes (lib_create_symbol + lib_add_pins + glyph primitives), which distinguishes it from the generic sibling lib_create_symbol.

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?

'In ONE call' plus the composition note tells an agent this is the shortcut that replaces chaining three siblings. Context of use is clear, but it never explicitly says to fall back to lib_create_symbol or lib_create_ic_symbol for parts outside the eight listed kinds.

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