add_generic_ic

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Add' and the target symbol; it does not disclose side effects on the schematic, permission requirements, input validation, or error behavior, which is especially sparse for a write 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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action, then add the decision rule and the most important parameter detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description does provide a use case plus pins_json format. However, for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is under-specified: key parameters like lib_id, coordinate semantics, reference, and footprint are left unexplained.

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. It clarifies the structure of the opaque string parameter pins_json ('[[number, name, electrical_type], ...]'), but it leaves the semantics of schematic_path, lib_id, x_mm, y_mm, value, footprint, and reference unaddressed.

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?

States a specific action ('Add') on a specific resource ('generic rectangular IC symbol') and the method ('by pin list'). The condition 'Use when the part is not in any installed library' further disambiguates it from library-based tools like add_component.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when the part is not in any installed library.' It does not name the alternative tool or state a when-not condition, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance but still offers clear context for selection.

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