set_component_attributes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention that this modifies the PCB, that changes may affect BOM/position output, or that the locked flag has implications for future edits.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The key action and target are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 destructive mutation tool with six parameters, no required parameters, and zero schema descriptions, this description is too thin. It lacks guidance on how to identify the footprint via ref/path, what happens when flags are set, and when this tool should be preferred over alternatives. The output schema exists but does not compensate for these gaps.

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 does add meaning for four of the six parameters by explaining dnp, exclude_from_bom, exclude_from_pos, and locked as flags. However, it omits ref and path, which are critical for identifying which footprint to modify, and does not explain how these selectors work.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('flags on a footprint'), and lists the exact flags: DNP, exclude-from-BOM, exclude-from-position-files, and locked. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_component_field, which would handle arbitrary field values.

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 alternatives, such as set_component_field or move_component. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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