Fritzing Place Part

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the coordinate system (90 DPI with an mm->px formula) and that the assigned ref comes back in the output, but says nothing about whether the sketch is persisted to disk, what happens if the file or module_id is invalid, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the two facts an agent actually needs (coordinate units and ref reuse). No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the main gotcha (pixel units). However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 43% schema coverage and no annotations, it omits how to obtain module_id, the meaning of view, and the persistence/error behavior.

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 43%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains x/y units and the significance of the returned ref. It leaves module_id (required, where to find it), props, and the file/view interaction undocumented in both places.

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 and resource: 'Add a part instance to a sketch.' An agent can distinguish it from move/remove siblings by the placement verb, though the description never names an alternative to reinforce that distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied through the workflow hint 'use it for wire/move/props,' which tells the agent what to do after placing. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus fritzing_create_part, fritzing_search_parts, or fritzing_move_part, and no stated prerequisites such as needing an existing sketch file.

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