add_power_symbol

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

The description reveals that it internally uses place_component and automatically adds a PWR_FLAG for ERC compliance, providing crucial behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only state non-readOnly and non-destructive). This fully discloses the tool's composite actions and side effects.

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 well-structured with a concise purpose followed by implementation details and a parameter list. It is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity, though the parameter list could be slightly more compressed (e.g., using a table). Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given 8 parameters, an output schema (so return values not needed), and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: the tool's purpose, internal behavior, automatic flag placement, and full parameter semantics. No gaps remain for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), but the description includes an 'Args' block that explains each parameter with examples and clarifies required fields (e.g., lib_id, reference, x, y). This fully compensates for the schema gaps, adding essential meaning.

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 clearly states 'Place a power symbol (VCC, GND, +3V3, etc.)' and distinguishes itself from generic symbol placement by mentioning internal use of place_component and the 'power' library with isPower=True. This clearly defines the tool's specific verb and resource, differentiating it from siblings like add_symbol.

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 description implies usage for power symbols and mentions automatic PWR_FLAG placement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_symbol or place_component. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, lacking clear exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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