sim_attach_primitives

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

No annotations, so the description carries the load: it discloses batch semantics, the round-trip savings, and that results come back as attached/failed/total, implicitly warning of partial failure. It does not say whether re-attaching overwrites an existing primitive or what permissions are needed, leaving a modest gap.

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 action and the batching rationale, then args, then a worked example. The example is long but justified given the untyped schema; the one blemish is that the example calls the tool `sch_attach_spice_primitives` instead of `sim_attach_primitives`, which could confuse.

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, yet the description still summarizes the return shape (attached/failed/total). Combined with full per-key parameter documentation and the readiness-workflow context, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the schema types the array items only as a string map, so the description must compensate entirely — and it does, enumerating designator/primitive/value/spice_model/sim_kind, giving the primitive letter set R/L/C/V/I/D/Q/M/X, and providing concrete value syntax like "10k" and "SIN(0 1 1k)".

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 (attach), resource (SPICE primitives), and scope (MANY components in ONE call). The batch nature and the absence of a singular variant make it unambiguous against its schematic/simulation siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to PREFER THIS after `sim_get_readiness`, explains the typical 20-50 passive scenario, and states there is no singular variant so per-component calls would waste turns. Clear when-to-use with the alternative ruled out.

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