pcb_create_component

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 only states the action and does not mention side effects, such as creating a new instance on the board, how it interacts with existing components at the same coordinates, whether it requires a pre-opened document, or how failures are surfaced. Important behavioral context is missing.

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 a single short sentence that communicates the core purpose immediately. There is no redundancy or filler, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

Although the schema is complete, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage. The description does not address potential failure modes, what happens after placement, or the behavioral aspects required to use the tool confidently in an agent loop. More context about the placement operation and its effects would be needed for full completeness.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter, including units for coordinates (mil) and layer codes (1=top, 2=bottom). The description adds only the conceptual link between 'library' and libraryUuid/componentUuid, so it does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 a specific action: '从库中放置元件到 PCB' (place a component from the library onto the PCB). It names the resource (component), the source (library), and the destination (PCB), and this wording differentiates it from sibling tools like pcb_relocate_component or pcb_move_component, which imply moving existing components rather than placing new ones.

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 implies the main use case—placing a new component from a library—but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as pcb_relocate_component for moving existing components. It also does not mention prerequisites like having a PCB document open or a valid library loaded.

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