kicad.set_component_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states that it 'Sets' a field without clarifying overwrite behavior, idempotency, whether new fields are created dynamically, or error conditions if the component doesn't exist.

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?

Single sentence that is appropriately front-loaded with the core action, followed by helpful parenthetical examples. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, but given zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, it lacks necessary behavioral details (error handling, mutation semantics) to be fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by illustrating what field_name/field_value represent (MPN, supplier examples), but does not explicitly map the 'ref' parameter to component reference designators or describe parameter formats.

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 action ('Set') and resource ('custom field on a component'), with specific examples (MPN, supplier, tolerance) that effectively distinguish it from siblings like set_reference and set_value.

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 parenthetical examples implicitly guide usage toward component metadata fields, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus set_reference/set_value, or prerequisites like component existence.

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