Place schematic component

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

Adds context beyond annotations: auto-assigns designator, handles duplicate 'R?' by merging, and auto-reconciles on timeout. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description enriches behavior understanding.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose and core behavior; the second addresses timeout handling. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 13 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description omits critical details like parameter effects (e.g., mirror, rotation, addIntoBom), return value structure, and prerequisites. Incomplete for a complex write tool.

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 only 8% (only confirmWrite has description). Despite 13 parameters and nested objects (deviceItem), the description does not explain any parameters, leaving agents to infer from names like x, y, mirror, rotation, etc.

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 clearly states 'Place a library component/device on the active schematic sheet' with specific details like auto-assigning designator and merging duplicates. This differentiates it from sibling schematic tools like easyeda_schematic_add_circle or easyeda_schematic_components.

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 clear guidance: check the returned value for duplicate designators, and on timeout error auto-reconcile rather than blindly retrying. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives but gives operational context.

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