Add Library Component

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the description owes extra context and supplies none. It does not say whether placement overwrites existing components at the same coordinates, whether the schematic must exist first, or what happens on duplicate references.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but at this length it is under-specified rather than concise given an 8-parameter mutation tool. The structure is fine; the content volume is the problem.

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 an 8-parameter, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin. It leaves required-parameter meaning, sibling selection, and mutation side effects entirely to inference.

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 only 13% (just workspace_root), so the description must carry the burden for x, y, value, rotation, reference, symbol_name, and schematic_path — and it adds essentially nothing. The phrase 'by name' loosely hints that symbol_name is the lookup key, but coordinates, rotation format, and reference semantics are entirely unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Place a library symbol'), which is better than a tautology, but 'library symbol' is not distinguished from the very similar siblings add_component, add_component_from_asy, and add_component_symbol_drawing. An agent cannot tell from the description which of these four to call for a given input.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite the crowded add_component* family in the sibling list. The agent is left to infer that 'library symbol' means a symbol resolved from a library rather than a raw .asy file.

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