Import a part into a KiCad library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states side effects (writes files, registers in lib tables), prerequisites (python3, kicad-lcsc-manager), and project impact. It does not mention error handling or return behavior, but the core disruptive behavior is adequately disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential prerequisites and usage timing. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 (external engine, file writes, library registration) and no output schema, the description covers key context: what it does, prerequisites, and when to use it. It could mention failure modes (e.g., missing library tables) but the provided information is sufficient 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context beyond the schema, such as the 3D model format (STEP + WRL) and the explicit mention of sym/fp-lib-table registration, which complements the project_dir parameter. This enhancement justifies a 4.

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 uses specific verbs ('Fetch', 'add', 'registering') and clearly identifies the resource (LCSC part) and destination (KiCad project libraries). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on importing/registering parts, unlike search/get/analyze 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?

Explicitly states when to run it: 'after picking parts with suggest_bom_parts / find_alternatives to make them usable in the schematic.' It also gives prerequisites (python3, external engine). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative for this task, so it falls short of a 5.

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