lib_install_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful state change (registration with the environment's Available Libraries, affecting lib-ref resolution across the whole workspace), but says nothing about idempotency if the library is already installed, whether the source file must exist, or permissions/session persistence — relevant for a mutating tool.

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 behavior and workspace-wide effect are front-loaded in two short sentences, followed by a clean Args/Returns block. No filler, and the 'after authoring' hint is placed where it is useful rather than buried.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values (the included Returns section is mild redundancy). For a one-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, the main missing piece is failure/idempotency behavior when the library is already registered or the path is invalid.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does by specifying the parameter is an absolute path to the library file, plus the accepted library file types. It does not give path examples or clarify relative/UNC handling, so it falls just short of fully documenting the argument.

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+resource (register/install a library into Available Libraries), names the accepted file formats (.IntLib/.SchLib/.PcbLib), and describes the observable effect (parts resolve by lib-ref workspace-wide). That effect plus the 'authoring a library' framing cleanly separates it from siblings like lib_uninstall_library, lib_reload_library and lib_get_installed_libraries.

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 parenthetical 'the step after authoring a library' gives explicit sequencing context, so an agent knows when in the workflow to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to use lib_reload_library or lib_uninstall_library instead) or stating preconditions, so it is not a full when/when-not.

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