Manage symbol parameters

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds real context by disclosing the backup behavior (timestamped .bak beside the file, five newest kept plus the first since server start) and what the reply contains for each operation. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the backup/durability disclosure is exactly the sort of detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and operation set, then rules, then siblings – good ordering, dense but no filler. It runs long as a single paragraph and repeats the case-insensitivity point that the schema already states, costing a little tightness.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back ('the reply carries the parameter as stored' and 'list returns every parameter with a count'), plus the side effect on disk. For an 11-parameter mutation tool that is complete enough to call 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not state: case-insensitive name matching in operational terms and the set-vs-add mutual refusal rules keyed on parameter_name. Remaining params (x, y, hidden, unique_id, param_type, read_only_state) are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb set (list/get/set/add/delete) applied to a clearly delimited resource: parameters of one symbol in a .SchLib, with examples of what a parameter is (Value, Manufacturer, Part Number). It also explicitly separates this from siblings that touch pins/graphics or footprint models, so an agent can route without opening another schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational routing: set refuses a name the symbol lacks so use add, add refuses an existing name so use set. It also names concrete alternatives and their distinct purposes (get_component/read_schlib for parameters alongside pins and graphics, update_component for whole-symbol rewrites, manage_schlib_footprints for footprint links).

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