Set Component Parameters

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

Annotations declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what is overwritten, whether spice_line2 is an optional second line, or what happens on an invalid reference. With a mutation tool, that is a real gap.

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 sentence with zero wasted words and no burying of key information. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise — brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and mostly undocumented parameters, the description should at minimum explain the SpiceLine concept, the required reference target, and the effect of the write. None of that is present, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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 20% (just workspace_root), leaving reference, spice_line, spice_line2, and schematic_path undocumented in both schema and description. The word 'SpiceLine' loosely gestures at the spice_line parameters but conveys no format, cardinality, or role for reference/schematic_path, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a verb ('Set') and a resource ('SpiceLine attributes'), so the basic operation is inferable. However, 'SpiceLine' is unexplained jargon and 'attributes' is vague — it gives no hint that this overwrites a component's raw SPICE netlist line, nor does it distinguish the tool from close siblings like set_component_value, set_parameter, or set_element_model.

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 reference already exist in the schematic?), and no routing to alternatives. The crowded set_* family around components makes this omission costly, since an agent has no textual basis for choosing this over set_component_value or set_parameter.

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