sch_create_component

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the description correctly doesn't restate them. It adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing a specific failure mode: passing only {deviceUuid, libraryUuid} triggers a validation error, and it describes the exact field set required.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then the IMPORTANT warning about the critical failure case. It is appropriately sized, though the component-object requirement is repeated between the description and the schema description, which is mildly redundant.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk requirement (the component object shape and its validation failure). It does not describe success behavior or the effect of addIntoPcb/addIntoBom, but the critical invocation path is documented.

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 ten parameters, including the component object's required fields and the libraryUuid caveat. The description largely repeats what the schema's component parameter description already states, adding little meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a schematic component from a library device reference.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like sch_modify_component, sch_delete_component, and sch_get_component, and an agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

Names the prerequisite tools explicitly ('Use lib_search_device or lib_get_device_by_lcsc first') and routes the agent to lib_get_system_library_uuid for the required libraryUuid. It gives a clear workflow but does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs. modifying an existing component).

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