place_component

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description bears the burden of explaining mutating behavior. It never states that placing a component will add it to the schematic, whether duplicate references are allowed, or if it modifies existing schematic files. It only mentions path resolution, leaving critical side effects undisclosed. This is insufficient for a write operation with no idempotency guarantee.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact, bulleted Args list. It is moderately lengthy due to 10 parameters, but every line adds value—no filler. The front-loaded purpose aids quick understanding. Slight verbosity in repeating all optional path details could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 params, mutation, no output schema shown), the description covers parameter semantics and some usage context, but lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling) and does not position itself against sibling placement/addition tools. The optional path defaults and hierarchy resolution are useful, yet the overall description leaves gaps in what happens on invocation.

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 provides only titles (e.g., 'X', 'Y', 'Value') with no descriptions (schema_description_coverage=0%). The description's Args section fully compensates: it explains each parameter with type examples (lib_id: 'Device:R', reference: 'R1'), units ('schematic units (mm)'), allowed values (rotation: 0,90,180,270), and optionality (paths: 'Optional; omit to use the configured default'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's action ('Place a schematic symbol') and enumerates component types (resistor, capacitor, etc.) and specific libraries ('Any lib_id in a library works'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like move_component (which moves) and remove_component (which deletes) by focusing on placement.

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 provides practical guidance on optional parameters (e.g., 'symbol_lib_path' for custom libraries, 'project_path' for hierarchy resolution) and tells users to omit optional args to use defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_symbol' or 'place_footprint', nor any exclusions. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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