sch_create_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: it tries JLCMCP native creation first and falls back to delegating to easyeda-agent on failure, and lcsc/query identity resolution is delegated externally. It omits details like return/error behavior, but it meaningfully reveals the tool's execution strategy.

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 dense sentences: the first states purpose, the second states both input strategies and the fallback behavior. No filler or repeated schema information; all sentences earn their place.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main decision an agent must make: how to specify the component and what execution path to expect. It leaves minor gaps such as coordinate-system assumptions and exact failure semantics, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds value by relating parameters: libraryUuid+uuid are one identity path while lcsc/query are the alternative auto-resolved path. This cross-parameter relationship is not evident from the individual property descriptions.

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 opens with '在原理图放置元件' — a specific verb (place) plus resource (schematic component) — and clearly distinguishes this from the pcb_* placement siblings. It also names the two accepted identity routes, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It gives concrete guidance: pass libraryUuid+uuid for direct identity, or lcsc/query for auto-resolution via easyeda-agent, and states the native-first-then-delegate fallback. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name a schematic-specific alternative, but the routing guidance is clear enough for selection.

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