lib_easyeda_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that lcsc_id fetches online while payload_path is offline, that KiCad mode writes three files into output_dir, that Altium mode writes nothing and only produces a plan, and that polygon pads / slotted holes degrade and surface in warnings. These are exactly the side effects and limitations an agent must know.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into labeled sections for source, KiCad, Altium, inspect and datasheet discipline, so it is scannable. It is long, and a couple of lines (e.g. the spec-implementation boast) could be trimmed without losing agent-relevant 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 10-parameter, multi-mode conversion tool, the description covers inputs, per-target outcomes, side effects and the return shape (ok/component/warnings plus files or steps). With an output schema present, it does not need to re-document return structure and correctly only summarizes it.

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 coverage is 0% for 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains target values, lcsc_id vs payload_path as mutually exclusive sources, fetch_3d default and KiCad-only applicability, output_dir, and schlib_path/pcblib_path for Altium. It leaves symbol_name, footprint_name and include_body_art unexplained, which is the remaining gap.

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 line names a specific verb+resource pair (convert an EasyEDA/LCSC part) and immediately differentiates the three output modes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lib_kicad_import, lib_easyeda_search and part_fetch.

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?

Explicit routing guidance per target: KiCad writes files, Altium returns an ordered plan to review and execute, inspect is recommended first for unfamiliar parts. It also names a follow-up tool (lib_audit_footprint_vs_datasheet) and the condition for using it, plus when 3D fetch is useless (Altium cannot use VRML).

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