create_library_part

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is known. The description adds real behavior (symbols are auto-generated, JLCPCB/MF/MP fields are auto-filled from cached EasyEDA data), but it does not disclose overwrite semantics, collision handling, or failure modes, which matters for a non-idempotent create with an overwrite flag.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and dense with useful detail; almost every clause carries information (input formats, symbol rules, param mappings, next steps). It is a single long block that could be broken up, but there is little waste.

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 13-parameter, 5-required tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, and the tricky params but omits meaning for required params like part_id, deviceset, prefix, and value, leaving the agent to guess their format. Adequate but with a real gap given the complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description carries the full burden and does well on the hard params: it explains jlc_native, jlc_code (C-number -> JLCPCB), pin_names (pad -> pin name mapping, shared names join a pin), directions (pin name -> in/out/io/pwr/pas/oc), and MF/MP sourcing. It leaves several params (part_id, deviceset, prefix, value, description, overwrite) undefined, so it falls short of full coverage.

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+resource ("Create a part in this server's component library from a KiCad footprint") and clarifies the exact input format (.kicad_mod from KiCad libs or JLCPCB). It situates itself in the workflow by naming the downstream siblings insert_library_part, save_design, and attach_3d_model, so an agent can tell it apart from add_part and insert_library_part.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: use easyeda2kicad --full exports with jlc_native=true, and it prescribes the follow-up sequence (open Fusion library, run insert_library_part, save_design, attach_3d_model). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a competing alternative for library creation.

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