set_component_value

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it mentions that a no-op value write is reported as unchanged, which is useful. It also clarifies that nodes rewrite is only for .cir/.net and not for .asc, and that nodes cannot be combined with value/values. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the behavior of the tool in specific scenarios. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded. It states the main purpose in the first sentence, then adds a note about no-op behavior. It's two sentences total, with no wasted words. The information is dense but clear. It doesn't repeat what's in the schema, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (two modes, multiple parameters, file type restrictions), the description covers the key points: modes, file type constraints, parameter combinations, and no-op behavior. It doesn't explain return values, but there's no output schema, so that's not required. It could mention what happens on error or the exact format of the response, but for a tool with good schema coverage and annotations, this is sufficient. The description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the modes (single vs batch) and the relationship between parameters (e.g., nodes requires reference, not combined with value/values). It also provides examples for value and values. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions, though the schema already covers the basics. The description helps clarify the parameter interactions.

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 the tool's function: setting component values in single or batch mode, and rewriting node connectivity. It specifies the resource (circuit file) and the actions (set value, rewrite nodes), and distinguishes between the two modes. It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning the specific operation on component values/nodes, which is distinct from other tools like add_component or edit_directive.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for setting values or fixing node connectivity. It mentions constraints like 'single mode only' for nodes, and that nodes requires .cir/.net only, and not combined with value/values. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., for .asc files, it says 'wire pins with connect' but doesn't name the tool). It gives some guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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