add_power_symbol

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: it uses place_component internally, places a PWR_FLAG automatically, and notes that power symbols are regular symbols with isPower=True. It also explains optional path parameters. No contradiction with annotations (all false).

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 appropriately sized and efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief note on internal behavior, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.

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 an 8-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, internal mechanism, auto-flag side effect, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It misses only minor details like return values or error scenarios, but those are covered by the output schema and annotations imply mutation.

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 fully compensates with an Args section that explains every parameter, including examples for lib_id and reference, units for x/y, rotation degrees, and optional path behaviors. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Place a power symbol (VCC, GND, +3V3, etc.)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like place_component by noting it uses place_component internally and adds a PWR_FLAG, making the specific purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated. It explains that power symbols come from the 'power' library with isPower=True and that a PWR_FLAG is auto-placed for ERC, which tells the agent when to prefer this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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