pcb_create_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'place component from library to PCB' and does not disclose board mutation effects, error conditions, library-reference requirements, or what happens if placement fails. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides only one line. It lacks usage context, return value expectations, error behavior, prerequisites, and guidance relative to auto-placement siblings. This is under-specified for an agent to invoke reliably.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including units for x/y and layer meaning. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '从库中放置元件到 PCB' clearly states the action (place), object (component), source (library), and destination (PCB). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcb_move_component and pcb_auto_place_components by specifying placement from a library onto the board.

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 usage for placing a component from a library at a specific position, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as pcb_auto_place_components or prerequisites like an open PCB document.

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