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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that all distances are in millimetres regardless of the document's Units attribute, and explains the dry_run preview versus actual write mechanism, including the expected_sha256 validation. This goes well beyond the schema but does not cover other behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects.

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, each packed with essential information: purpose and unit override, then the safe dry_run-then-commit workflow. No filler or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, no annotations), the description covers the critical safety workflow but leaves many parameters unexplained and does not describe the preview output or what happens on validation failure. It is adequate for the core operation but incomplete for a full understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to x and y by stating they are in millimetres, and explains dry_run and expected_sha256 semantics. However, many other parameters (e.g., refdes, pin_count, component_part) are left to their names alone, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 starts with 'Place a new schematic part referencing a library ComponentStyle,' which specifies a clear action (place), resource (new schematic part), and context (referencing a library ComponentStyle). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_components or placement planning tools.

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 usage guidance for the dry_run workflow: use dry_run=true for preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing its expected_sha256. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the workflow is actionable and clear for safe invocation.

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