kicad.set_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention mutation side effects, validation behavior (e.g., handling duplicate references), or whether changes propagate between schematic and PCB. The single sentence provides minimal behavioral context beyond identifying the operation as a write action.

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. While brevity contributes to other scoring gaps, the sentence itself earns its place without waste.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema (removing the burden of describing return values), the tool remains under-documented due to zero input schema coverage. For a mutation operation affecting design data, the lack of parameter explanations, format constraints, or behavioral warnings renders the description incomplete.

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 must compensate by explaining the two parameters ('old_ref' and 'new_ref'). It fails to do so, omitting that 'old_ref' identifies the target component and 'new_ref' specifies the desired identifier, leaving parameter semantics entirely 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?

The description uses specific domain terminology ('reference designator') and a clear verb ('Set'), accurately describing the operation on a component. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'set_value' or 'set_component_field', though the term 'reference designator' implicitly distinguishes it in PCB design contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as component existence or constraints on reference designator formats (e.g., uniqueness requirements).

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