modify_component

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

Annotations already disclose idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that modification occurs 'in a stored circuit's netlist,' providing context about the persistent nature of the operation. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, validation, or error cases. A score of 3 is appropriate as description adds some value beyond annotations but lacks depth.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it may be overly brief, sacrificing necessary detail. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the relationship to sibling tools, the expected format of parameters, or the result of the operation. More context is needed for effective agent use.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not compensate: it fails to explain the format or meaning of circuit_id, component, or value. Without any semantic guidance, the agent must guess parameter usage, making this dimension severely lacking.

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 action and resource: 'Modify a component value in a stored circuit's netlist.' The verb 'Modify' and resource 'component value in a stored circuit's netlist' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like set_ports or create_circuit, but does not explicitly differentiate. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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, no prerequisites, and no context about when modifications are appropriate. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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