eda_pcb_primitive_component_place_component_with_mouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool binds the component to the cursor and returns immediately without waiting for the user's placement, and that the return value indicates whether the component was found. This is important non-blocking behavior. It doesn't cover failure modes or environment requirements, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 moderately verbose with a signature line, Chinese summary, remarks, and return explanation. It is organized into clear lines and front-loads the core action. Some repetition exists (the summary and remarks overlap), but overall it's efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return type and non-blocking behavior, which is critical. However, it omits prerequisites such as an active PCB document or canvas, and doesn't explain how to cancel or what happens if the user doesn't click. These gaps make it slightly incomplete for an agent planning a workflow.

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 only shows an 'args' array and windowId, but the description provides the exact first parameter type: { libraryUuid: string; uuid: string } | ILIB_DeviceItem | ILIB_DeviceSearchItem, and explains it represents the component to place. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which is otherwise opaque about the args structure. windowId is also described. Given the high schema coverage, the description still adds value.

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 clearly states the action: placing a component using the mouse. It specifies the exact API method, describes the mechanism (binds component to mouse, user clicks to place), and distinguishes from schematic counterparts by name and scope. It's specific and unambiguous.

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 explains how the tool works (simulates the place button, binds to mouse) and notes it returns immediately without waiting, which is useful context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like place_footprint_with_mouse or place_cbb_pcb, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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