place_builtin_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that `dry_run=true` does not write, and the requirement to pass `expected_sha256` implies a safety mechanism. It also states the operation creates a 'private schematic copy,' indicating non-destructive behavior on the original component. This is decent coverage, though it doesn't mention side effects like overwriting or needing permissions.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states action and scope, the second covers units and the dry_run workflow. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide invocation. It covers the essential workflow but leaves most parameter semantics undefined. An output schema may clarify return values, but the lack of parameter documentation makes the tool hard to use correctly without further external knowledge.

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 0% and the description only meaningfully explains two of eleven parameters: `dry_run` and `expected_sha256`. It mentions 'catalog id/name' which maps to `component`, but leaves required params like `refdes`, `x`, `y` and optional ones like `path`, `sheet`, `value`, `angle_deg`, `diptrace_root` unexplained. The agent would have to infer or guess their meaning.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Find an installed component by catalog id/name and place a private schematic copy.' It distinguishes it from sibling tools like place_part (generic placement) and library query tools by specifying it works with installed components and creates a private schematic copy.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: use `dry_run=true` to preview without writing, then set `dry_run=false` only after inspecting the preview and passing the `expected_sha256`. It also clarifies that all distances are in millimeters regardless of document units. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like place_part or set_component_pattern, so it's not a 5.

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