Prepare Schematic Component Mutation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating no modification occurs before confirmation — an important clarification for a tool that prepares delete operations. However, it doesn't disclose what the preview/token looks like, whether tokens expire or are invalidated by a subsequent prepare, or what happens if the target guard mismatches.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and operation set, followed by the safety guarantee and the required confirmation tool. No filler and nothing redundant against the schema.

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 an 18-parameter mutation-preparation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety contract and the handoff to easyeda_confirmed_action. It is slightly thin on what the caller receives from the preview (confirmation phrase format, target fingerprint handling), which the agent needs to complete the loop.

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 94% schema description coverage, the schema already documents nearly every parameter, so the baseline applies. The description adds one useful semantic claim — 'ID/designator resolution' — signaling that the component parameter accepts either form, but otherwise contributes little parameter-level 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?

States a specific verb ('Prepares'), the resource ('schematic component'), and enumerates the covered operations (create, move, update, delete). This cleanly distinguishes it from easyeda_prepare_pcb_component and the other prepare_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the follow-up step: nothing is modified until confirmed via easyeda_confirmed_action, which tells the agent this is the first half of a two-call workflow. It does not say when to use this versus read-only siblings like easyeda_get_selection or easyeda_find_component for locating the target first, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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