select_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so nothing is contradicted (no annotation contradiction). The description adds meaningful behavioral context — that add=true preserves the existing selection and that the tool changes visible selection state — but it does not disclose what happens to the previous selection when add=false (implied replacement only).

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 tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded before parameter details. Zero filler; every clause 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the purpose and two of three parameters are covered. The path parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, making the definition nearly-but-not-fully complete 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It documents refs ('JSON list of references') and add ('keeps the existing selection'), but path is left entirely unexplained with no schema description to fall back on, leaving a real gap for the agent.

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 verb (select), resource (footprints in the PCB editor), and the intent behind it ('so the user can see which ones you mean'). This is unambiguous about what the tool does and lets it be distinguished from the read-oriented sibling get_selection.

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 phrase 'so the user can see which ones you mean' gives implied context for when to use the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as get_selection. Usage context is present but inferred rather than stated.

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