lib_footprint_open_in_editor

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: opening creates a tab, the call returns a tabId, and system-library footprints are rejected. It does not say what happens if the same footprint is already open in a tab.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the return-value and eligibility details. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (tabId and how to use it) and states the eligibility restriction. The remaining gap is what state the editor/tab ends up in and whether repeated opens stack tabs.

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 four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds indirect meaning only (libraryUuid must point at a personal/team/project library, and the returned tabId is a document UUID); it says nothing about instance_id or splitScreenId.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Open a library footprint in the EasyEDA editor as a tab') and pins the scope with a hard constraint ('only footprints in a personal, team or project library'). The footprint/symbol distinction is unambiguous against lib_symbol_open_in_editor, which shares the same verb.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context plus a chaining recipe: take the returned tabId and feed it to document_get_source / document_save_to_file as the document UUID. It also states a negative condition (system-library footprints are refused). It does not name an alternative tool for cases where the footprint should not be opened interactively.

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