Batch-update a library

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

Annotations already say destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful details about the actual mutations (changetrack width, move layers, set parameters) and how to avoid them (dry_run). This extends beyond the bare annotation and helps the agent naturally understand the file modification behavior.

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?

Three sentences, clearly front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by operation-to-file-type mapping and a dry_run tip. No fluff. Slightly below the ideal 5 because of the long list of operation examples embedded in a single sentence, but still compact.

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 adequate for parameter coverage and the destructive nature is inferrable, but it does not discuss what the operation returns (e.g., a summary or count of changes) and does not state prerequisites for PcbLib vs SchLib files beyond specifying which operations apply. For a destructive update tool this leaves some possible gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema already describes all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description adds little new parameter-specific information beyond some examples (e.g., layer names). That matches the baseline of 3 for already-complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific intent ('Perform one batch operation across all components in an Altium library file') and enumerates the three distinct operations per file type. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like update_component and bulk_rename because it is explicitly batch-oriented.

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?

It provides clear context: batch operations across all components, with examples and a concrete dry_run usage to preview changes. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for single-component updates, so it stops slightly 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.