eda_sch_primitive_component_place_component_with_mouse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool binds the component to the mouse, returns immediately without waiting for user placement, and returns true only if the component is found. This is important non-obvious behavior that helps an agent understand the asynchronous nature of the operation.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear signature, a short Chinese summary, and a remark section that adds crucial timing information. It is front-loaded with the action and returns details, and avoids redundancy.

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 description explains the return behavior and the mouse-binding mechanism, but omits important context: it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open schematic document), does not explain the windowId parameter, and does not discuss when to use this interactive placement versus alternatives. These omissions leave an agent with incomplete information for correct invocation.

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 is a generic 'args' array with no item structure, so the description's function signature is the primary source of parameter meaning. It lists the component union type and optional subPartName, but does not explain how to obtain these values or what the types represent in detail. This partially compensates for the schema's lack of structure but leaves gaps.

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 action clearly: 'place component with mouse' and provides the exact function signature. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'place_symbol_with_mouse' beyond the name, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like place_symbol_with_mouse or programmatic component creation. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context in which it should be selected.

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