Add Library Include

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

Annotations already convey the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context at all. It does not say whether the directive is appended, where in the netlist/schematic it lands, or what validation happens on the paths.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. Conciseness is achieved by omission of necessary content rather than by tight editing.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 33% schema coverage and no output schema, yet the description supplies no return or side-effect information, no path-format expectations, and no note on required workspace context. Given the complexity and the number of sibling edit tools, the description is too thin to call it correctly.

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 only 33%: workspace_root is documented, but the two required parameters (schematic_path, library_path) have no description in the schema and none in the description. The description therefore fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the parameters that actually matter.

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 specific verb (add) and object (.lib directive), so the basic operation is identifiable, but the term '.lib directive' is jargon and the description gives no scope (which schematic, what it affects). It also does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like add_library_component or list_includes.

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, no prerequisites (e.g. must the schematic exist first), and no mention of alternatives such as list_includes or resolve_model_libraries. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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