Manage symbol footprint links

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict that. It adds that footprint references link schematic symbols to PCB footprints and that removal is supported, but it does not disclose side effects like file mutation or validation warnings. With annotations handling the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core resource plus operations are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information without repeating schema content.

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 covers the tool's core purpose and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention return behavior or failure modes. It also lacks alternative-routing guidance, which matters given the large sibling toolset. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 every parameter is already documented in detail. The description only restates the high-level operation categories and adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('footprint links in Altium SchLib symbols') and a precise set of operations ('listing, adding, and removing'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_schlib_parameters or write_schlib because it targets footprint references 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 states what operations the tool supports but does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives such as write_schlib or update_component. There are no exclusion criteria or 'use X instead' guidance, so the agent must infer applicability from the footprint-link focus.

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