place_component

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, which the description aligns with by stating 'Place a component'. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether placing overwrites an existing component at the same location or any error conditions. Annotations partially cover the safety profile.

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 clear one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted argument list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence serves a purpose, providing necessary details for each parameter.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 5 required) and existence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters but lacks contextual details such as whether the component is placed immediately, interaction with existing components, or required file existence. This is adequate but not complete.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by providing detailed parameter semantics: lib_id examples ('Device:R', 'MyLib:MyPart'), allowed rotation values (0, 90, 180, 270), mirror options ('x','y',''), and context for schematic_path and project_path. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 the verb 'Place' and the resource 'component in the schematic', making the tool's primary action unambiguous. It stands out from siblings like 'move_component' and other 'add_' tools by specifying placement in the schematic.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., move_component, add_symbol). The description lists parameters but does not provide context such as prerequisites (e.g., schematic must exist) or typical use cases.

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