set_component_symbol_pinMove or add an LTspice symbol pin by setting its name, X/Y position, and SPICE order for correct schematic simulation connections.
Move or add a symbol pin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| asy_path | Yes | ||
| pin_name | Yes | ||
| spice_order | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety direction is partially covered. The description adds nothing beyond 'move or add': no statement of whether an existing pin is overwritten or appended, no error behavior, no note that it writes to the .asy file, and no idempotency discussion despite idempotentHint=false.
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 six-word sentence is brief but is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is front-loaded only in the trivial sense of being one clause long.
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?
A 6-parameter mutation tool with 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and a one-sentence description leaves critical gaps: coordinate system, effect on existing pins, file side effects, and error conditions are all unaddressed.
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 17% (only workspace_root is documented), and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. Five required parameters — asy_path, pin_name, x, y, spice_order — are left entirely opaque, so the agent must guess at units, coordinate conventions, and the meaning of spice_order.
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 ('move or add') and a resource ('symbol pin'), which is enough to place it in the symbol-editing family alongside set_component_symbol_text and remove_component_symbol_drawing. However, it never says which file/artifact is mutated (asy_path suggests a symbol definition file) and the 'move OR add' disjunction leaves the actual operation ambiguous — an agent cannot tell what determines which behavior occurs.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over add_component_symbol_drawing or set_component_symbol_text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.