eda_sch_primitive_component_place_cbb_schematic_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (Promise<boolean>) but gives no indication of side effects, whether it mutates the schematic, requires a specific document to be active, or what happens on failure. The 'reimportWhenNameRepeated' property hints at behavior around name conflicts but is unexplained. The tool likely mutates the schematic, but this is not disclosed.

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 short – a single line of code signature plus two brief Chinese phrases. It is concise, but the structure is a raw API signature rather than a readable explanation. It front-loads the signature, which is efficient, but the lack of narrative context makes it less accessible. It earns a 3 because it is compact but not well-structured for agent comprehension.

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?

The tool is a placement operation with multiple parameters and no output schema, and annotations are absent. The description fails to explain prerequisite conditions (e.g., an active schematic page), the meaning and units of coordinates, the behavior of the props option, and potential error conditions or side effects. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without additional knowledge. The return type is the only behavioral detail, leaving significant gaps for a non-trivial operation.

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 includes the full function signature with parameter names and types (e.g., cbbSchematicPage with libraryUuid, cbbUuid, uuid; x, y; props.reimportWhenNameRepeated). However, it only lists names and types without explaining their meaning, units, or roles. For instance, what are libraryUuid, cbbUuid, and uuid? What coordinate system do x and y use? What does reimportWhenNameRepeated actually do? The input schema only provides an 'args' array with no internal descriptions, so the description's signature is the only source, but it lacks semantic depth.

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 states the function signature and a Chinese phrase '放置复用模块原理图图页' (place reusable module schematic page), which clearly indicates the tool places a CBB schematic page onto the schematic. The verb 'place' and resource 'CBB schematic page' are explicit, distinguishing it from other placement tools like place_component_with_mouse. However, it doesn't elaborate on the exact context or what a CBB is, so it's clear but not fully detailed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling placement tools (e.g., place_component_with_mouse, place_symbol_with_mouse), but no mention of when this specific tool is appropriate, when not to use it, or any prerequisites like an open schematic page. The only implicit signal is the name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between options.

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