sch_replicate_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutation, the first-match designator lookup, the optional part-id switch and move, and the UniqueId-sharing side effect. Gaps remain around required document state (active schematic) and failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block is tight. The ECO/UniqueId rationale paragraph is longer than strictly necessary but explains a genuinely non-obvious mechanism, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, all five parameters, the multi-part packing constraint, and even the return shape despite an output schema already existing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 does: designator gets an example ("U8"), part_id is clarified as 1-based with 0 meaning keep source, x/y are in mils and must be omitted together, and new_designator empty keeps the source designator with the multi-part rationale. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 ("Copy a placed schematic part") plus the distinguishing behavior ("share the master's UniqueId"), which separates it from siblings like obj_copy, sch_place_components and sch_set_component_unique_id. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage rationale: this path is the one to use for multi-part packing because it stamps UniqueId before AddSchObject rather than after. It explains the condition that selects this approach, though it never explicitly names an alternative sibling to use instead for other cases.

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