sch_modify_component

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds substantial non-structured context: the snapshot/merge metadata-preservation behavior, exactly which fields (supplierId, otherProperty, manufacturer, etc.) survive a partial edit, the fact that explicit null still applies, and that stock EasyEDA behaves differently. It also discloses a concrete failure mode for cross-page moves with the error string. This is well beyond what annotations convey.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior and limitations follow. It is somewhat verbose with fork-specific asides ('bug-1 fix, this fork only', 'Stock EasyEDA does NOT do this'), but each sentence carries decision-relevant information, so it is defensible rather than wasteful.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and covering annotations, the description supplies the behavioral and limitation context an agent needs (metadata preservation, null semantics, cross-page failure). It does not describe the response shape or error handling beyond the one documented bug, a minor residual gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further, explaining that omitted fields are preserved while explicitly-passed values (including null) are applied — semantics the schema itself does not convey — and it clarifies the failure mode of the 'document' parameter. This meaningfully exceeds the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Modify properties of a schematic component') and enumerates the kind of properties affected (position, rotation, designator). It is clearly distinguishable from sch_create_component, sch_delete_component, and the wire/net siblings by name and scope.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer 'use this to edit an existing component,' but there is no explicit when-to-use vs sch_swap_supplier_part or sch_create_component, and no prerequisites. The cross-page LIMITATION note is valuable routing information for an edge case, but it does not generalize into broader usage guidance.

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