eda_sch_primitive_component_place_symbol_with_mouse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: return timing is immediate (does not wait for placement) and returns true if the symbol is found. However, it omits details like failure modes when the symbol is not found, side effects on the editing session, and whether cancellation is possible. It gives useful transparency but is not thorough for a mutation with user interaction.

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 relatively concise, with the signature and key behavior in a short block. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains behavior. There is some redundancy between the two Chinese explanatory sentences, but overall it is efficient enough.

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 boolean and the interaction flow, but for an interactive tool it lacks important context: it doesn't state that the function is asynchronous (Promise), doesn't mention prerequisites like an open schematic, doesn't cover what happens if the user never clicks or if the mouse is already bound, and doesn't discuss recovery. Given no annotations or output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 exposes generic 'args' and 'windowId', but the description provides the actual function signature with parameter types (symbol, subPartName, properties). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the semantics of subPartName or properties (e.g., valid values, defaults), so it is only partially helpful.

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 tool places a symbol using the mouse, and explains it simulates clicking the place button and binds the symbol to the cursor. This is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling placement tools like eda_sch_primitive_component_place_component_with_mouse or place_cbb_schematic_page, so while clear, it lacks explicit differentiation.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active schematic document), nor does it state when another placement tool would be more appropriate. The behavioral notes explain how it works but not when to choose it.

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