set_component_field

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

The annotations already convey mutation via readOnlyHint=false and destructive potential via destructiveHint=true. The description adds the scope distinction that this edits board footprints, not schematic items, but it does not explain persistence, undo/save implications, or failure behavior. Given the annotations already cover the main hazard, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word adds information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 four parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description is too thin. It does not explain how ref/path identify the component, what values are acceptable, or what the destructive edit implies. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the invocation ambiguity remains 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. It does clarify that 'field' can be value, datasheet, or description text, but it leaves ref, path, and value semantics unexplained, and gives no guidance on how to target a specific footprint or how the optional parameters interact.

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 names concrete targets: value, datasheet, or description text of a footprint. It also explicitly scopes the tool to the board rather than the schematic, which helps distinguish it from schematic-focused siblings. It does not differentiate it from the nearby set_component_attributes tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(not the schematic)' provides an explicit boundary, implying this is for board footprint fields rather than schematic components. However, it does not name alternatives or state conditions for when to choose this tool over siblings like set_component_attributes or get_component.

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