sch_add_datafile_link

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 discloses that this is a mutation on the component's 'current implementation' and that the return contains success/designator/file_path, which goes beyond typical annotation content. It does not say whether an existing link is replaced or appended, what happens if the file path is invalid, or whether a save/compile is 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?

Well front-loaded: the one-line purpose comes first, followed by a short explainer, then Args and Returns. The Args block duplicates the schema, but with 0% schema coverage that repetition is earned rather than wasteful. A minor trim would be possible but nothing is genuinely filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns note is a bonus rather than a necessity. For a mutation tool with no annotations, though, the description should cover the mutation's side effects — duplicate vs. replace semantics, error behavior, and whether the change persists in the schematic — none of which are addressed.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all three parameters with a concrete designator example ('U1'), a full-path requirement for file_path, and example values for the optional kind field ('SimModel', 'IBIS'). Only the accepted set of kind values and path format constraints remain unspecified.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Attach a datafile link to a component's current implementation'), and the follow-up sentence explains what a datafile link actually is (IBIS models, sim models, external CSVs bound to a schematic part). It is clear, but it never names or distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as sim_attach_model, sim_attach_primitives, or lib_set_model_source.

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?

Usage is implied by the explanation of what datafile links are for, which gives an agent enough context to know this is the tool for binding parametric model files to a schematic part. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the adjacent sim_attach_model or lib_* model tools, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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