eda_sch_primitive_component_create_cbb_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it creates a component and returns the created object, but does not disclose effects like whether existing components are overwritten, whether the operation modifies the document undo stack, requires an open schematic document, or how errors (e.g. invalid libraryUuid) behave. The description is a raw TypeScript signature with a one-line Chinese summary; it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the signature itself.

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 extremely compact: a signature plus a 5-character Chinese summary. It front-loads the signature, which is the most useful part. No wasted prose, but it is arguably under-specified rather than concise; still, every word earns its place and the structure is clear.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a generic args array, the description is incomplete. It doesn't state prerequisites (must have a schematic document open, must have a CBB library UUID and CBB UUID from a search), coordinate units, return shape beyond the type name, or failure modes. A sibling like eda_sch_primitive_component_place_cbb_schematic_page exists, and without more context an agent cannot reliably choose or call this tool.

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 description embeds the parameter list in the signature (cbbSymbol object, x, y, rotation, mirror), which repeats what the input schema's generic 'args' array does not. Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema only says 'JSON parameter array in official signature order' — it does not name or explain individual parameters. The description names the parameters but does not explain semantics like units for x/y (likely mils), rotation direction/units, or what 'mirror' refers to (mirror about which axis). It adds the parameter names and types, but not deeper meaning.

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 is an auto-generated function signature that clearly states the verb ('createCbbSymbol'), the resource ('复用模块符号', reusable module symbol), and the return type. The tool name is also explicit. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create' by specifying CBB symbol creation and from the broader CBB library tools. While the description is largely a signature, it does state the specific operation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_sch_primitive_component_create or eda_sch_primitive_component_place_cbb_schematic_page. The description does not mention that CBB symbols require a libraryUuid/cbbUuid from a prior library search, nor does it distinguish this from placing an existing CBB symbol. The signature implies prerequisites but no explicit guidance is given.

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