lib_bind_part_to_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Requires the schematic backend' for auto_assign_footprint and says it 'attempts' the assignment, but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing assignments, requires specific permissions, or is reversible. This is a significant gap 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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, usage context, and Args/Returns sections. It is longer than the bare minimum but each section adds value, especially given the absence of schema descriptions for parameters.

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?

Context signals indicate an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return value format. It covers the main parameters, usage context, and return confirmation, making it adequate for a 4-parameter tool, though it omits error conditions and side effects.

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, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains sym_ref with an example, defines lcsc_code_or_mpn, describes auto_assign_footprint behavior, and gives a brief role for source. However, 'source' is vague ('Parts source for detail lookup') with no possible values or semantics.

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 tool assigns a live part (LCSC/MPN) to a schematic symbol with optional footprint assignment. The verb 'Assign' and resource are specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lib_assign_lcsc_to_symbol, but the workflow context helps.

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 explicitly states it is the recommended tool after lib_recommend_part() or lib_search_components() returns a suitable part, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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