lib_assign_footprint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only says 'assign' without noting overwrite behavior, persistence, library/reference resolution, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted wording, but it is under-specified. For a tool with three required parameters, this brevity sacrifices necessary detail, though it remains easily parseable.

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?

The description is inadequate for a mutation tool with three required params and no annotations. It omits prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, and parameter meanings. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these critical gaps.

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%, and the description does not clarify the three required parameters (library, footprint, reference). It doesn't explain how these parameters identify the symbol or what values are expected.

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 a specific verb ('Assign') and resource ('a footprint property') with a clear target ('a schematic symbol'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lib_assign_lcsc_to_symbol by naming the footprint property specifically.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, not why or when to choose it.

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