set_component_property

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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses that missing properties are created, that Reference/Value/Footprint are mirrored into symbol instances and the root symbol_instances table, and that renaming happens by setting key='Reference'. It also warns about the .kicad_pro dependency for root-table updates, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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: the core action is front-loaded, followed by the important side-effect paragraph, then a compact Args list. Every sentence adds information relevant to correct invocation, and the length is justified by the mirrored-table behavior it explains.

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 four-parameter property setter with an output schema, the description covers the operation, creation semantics, cross-table effects, project-file dependency, and parameter meanings. It does not need to describe return values because an output schema exists, and it provides enough detail for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 must compensate. The Args block adds concrete semantics for all four parameters with examples ('R1', 'MPN', 'Tolerance', 'Value') and notes that schematic_path is optional. It does not enumerate every possible property key or value-formatting rule, but for an open-ended property setter that is acceptable.

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 specific verb-resource action: 'Set any property on a placed component, or rename it.' It also clarifies that missing properties are created, and the reference to renaming via key='Reference' distinguishes it from generic setters. The tool is clearly differentiated from sibling placement/label/PCB tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it modifies placed component properties and explains the difference between working with a .kicad_pro versus a loose .kicad_sch. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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