Kicad Sch Add Symbol

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait — schematic mm units and the inverted KiCad Y axis — which is real added value. However, for a write/mutation tool it says nothing about persistence (file write via 'path'), duplicate reference handling, or failure modes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter coverage noted elsewhere.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and only 3 parameters touched by the description, this is under-specified for a mutation tool. The output schema spares it from explaining return values, but the missing param and side-effect context leaves real gaps.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it explains x/y units and axis orientation and the lib_id format. The semantics of required 'path' and 'reference', plus 'value' and 'rotation', are left entirely undocumented.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Add a symbol instance to a schematic') and pins the identifier format with an example ('Device:R'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like kicad_sch_add_wire or kicad_pcb_add_footprint, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The agent must infer that this is the drawing/schematic-population step and not, say, kicad_list_symbols or kicad_pcb_add_footprint.

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