Extract Circuit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that added components must include part_uuid and that recoverable errors are returned (max 36), but it does not disclose whether the file is overwritten in place, whether changes are transactional, authentication requirements, or the nature of the response. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a key constraint and error behavior. No redundant wording; every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a complex tool with 6 required parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description omits return value format, detailed operation semantics (add, remove, connect), and failure handling beyond max 36 errors. It is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior from the description alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds emphasis on part_uuid being mandatory and error limits, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. It references SKILL.md for further details, but the schema already documents each parameter.

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 applies circuit changes to a KiCad .kicad_sch file, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from read-only and search tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with beautify_schematic which also modifies the schematic.

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 implies the tool is for circuit modification and points to SKILL.md for documentation, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like beautify_schematic or when not to use it. No explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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