kicad.add_component

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The example implies placement at coordinates but does not disclose units (mm vs. mils), side effects (what happens if ref exists), mutability (creates placement that can be moved/deleted), or output schema contents. Minimum viable behavioral context.

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?

Three efficient components: action statement, prerequisite guidance, and illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no redundant text.

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 6 parameters (5 required) and existence of output schema, the description covers the essential usage pattern and prerequisite workflow. The example demonstrates all required fields. Could be improved by mentioning the optional rotation parameter or coordinate units, but complete enough for correct 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage (only titles like 'Symbol', 'Ref'). The description's example ('Device:R', 'R1', '10k', x=100, y=50) effectively documents the expected format for all required parameters, compensating significantly for the schema deficit. Only the optional rotation parameter is undocumented.

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?

States 'Add a symbol to the schematic' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from board-layout siblings (place_via, route_trace) and other schematic primitives (add_wire, add_text), though it does not explicitly differentiate from add_power_symbol which also adds schematic symbols.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use search_symbols first to find the symbol ID.' This establishes a prerequisite and references the sibling search tool. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative selection guidance (e.g., vs. add_power_symbol).

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