add_lib_symbol

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

The description states symbol_lib_path is optional, but the schema marks it as required, a direct contradiction that undermines agent correctness. Additionally, with all annotations false, the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects, but it neither explains the mutation behavior nor mentions idempotency or error handling.

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 description is concise, uses a clear docstring structure with an Args block, front-loads the purpose, and avoids redundancy. The only blemish is the optionality error, but that is a content issue, not a structural one.

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 mutation tool with no annotation support and incomplete parameter documentation, the description should clarify the exact behavioral outcome (e.g., whether the symbol is added to the schematic library vs. instantiated) and highlight the required/optional mismatch. It does not.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter with a format hint (e.g., '.kicad_sym' and '.kicad_sch') and an example for symbol_name. However, the incorrect 'optional' label for symbol_lib_path reduces its value.

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 description uses a specific verb 'Load' with a clear resource ('a symbol definition from a .kicad_sym library') and destination ('into the schematic'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_symbol or place_component.

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?

It does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like add_symbol or place_component, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'into the schematic' context is implied but no explicit guidance is given.

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