Manage symbol parameters

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's mention of deleting parameters is consistent with destructive behavior. However, the description does not disclose side effects such as in-place file modification, reversibility, or permissions required. It adds little beyond the annotation and the operation enum.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main resource is front-loaded, followed by a compact list of supported operations and typical parameter examples. Every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding without redundancy.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and operation set but omits return-value expectations, file modification semantics, and explicit differentiation from footprint management. The schema covers parameter details well, but the description leaves noticeable gaps for an agent invoking the tool correctly.

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 minor value by giving example parameter names like Value and Manufacturer, which are not in the schema, but it does not explain operation-parameter dependencies beyond what the schema already states. The added semantics are illustrative, not substantial.

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 identifies the resource (component parameters in Altium SchLib files) and enumerates the operations (listing, getting, setting, adding, deleting). It provides concrete example parameter names, making the purpose unambiguous. The resource focus on parameters distinguishes it from siblings like manage_schlib_footprints.

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 usage through the resource name and supported operations, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as manage_schlib_footprints or read_schlib. There is no when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance, leaving the selection largely to the agent's inference.

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