add_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the library fallback behavior ('installed KiCad symbol libraries when available, otherwise a built-in symbol set') and that the tool 'writes atomically,' which are meaningful behavioral details beyond the bare mutation. It does not mention side effects or failure modes, but the disclosed behaviors are concrete.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by two high-value behavioral facts. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the high parameter count, multiple sibling tools, and absence of annotations, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits critical guidance such as valid lib_id sources, coordinate units, whether schematic_path must already exist, and how add_component differs from add_generic_ic. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input-side gaps remain significant.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the eight parameters. It does not explain lib_id format, coordinate units, rotation conventions, value/reference/footprint semantics, or schematic_path expectations. The library-selection sentence hints at lib_id meaning but is far from sufficient.

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 names a clear operation and resource: 'Add a component to a schematic.' It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool add_generic_ic, which appears to overlap in function, so it is clear but not sibling-specific.

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 about when to use this tool versus add_generic_ic, add_wire, add_label, or other schematic-editing siblings. The description states facts about library selection and atomicity but does not explain under what conditions an agent should choose this tool over an alternative.

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