add_component

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false) by indicating a mutating action, and adds context about the file type and grid positioning. It does not disclose side effects like duplicate reference handling or whether existing file content is preserved, but the annotations already cover the basic safety profile.

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. Every word contributes meaning, naming the action, target, and positioning requirement.

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 the rich input schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the one-sentence description is largely sufficient. It does not explain less obvious behavior like duplicate references or file-creation semantics, but these are not needed for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, only framing the action as adding to a schematic at a grid position. This meets the baseline for a high-coverage schema.

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 ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('a new component to an .asc schematic') and a key constraint ('at a specified grid position'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_component_value or create_schematic.

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 description implies the tool is for adding new components to schematics, which is sufficient for basic selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for modifying existing components or creating schematics.

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