add_part

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the forward-annotation side effect onto the board and the sheet-creation behavior (existing sheet or sheets + 1), which the agent can't get from annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and example, with the sheet behavior appended. Minimal waste, though the parenthetical example is dense and the phrasing could be tighter.

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?

For a mutating, 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors (forward annotation, sheet creation) but leaves most parameters unexplained and doesn't mention prerequisites, so an agent is not fully equipped.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies 'device' (device set + variant with an example) and 'sheet'. The required ref, x_mm, y_mm and the optional angle and library_name 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 specific verb ("Place") and resource (a device from a Fusion library into the schematic), and even gives a concrete device example. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closely-related sibling insert_library_part, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied by the context (placing parts into a schematic), but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite (e.g., a library must be open or device found first), or guidance distinguishing it from siblings like insert_library_part. The agent must infer the workflow.

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