set_part_current

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that numbers must be sourced ('Always cite where the numbers came from') and that verified=False marks estimates rather than datasheet values, but it never states whether entries overwrite existing data, persistence scope of the 'user part database', or any permission/idempotency behavior for this mutation.

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-loads the one-line purpose before the Args block, and the argument documentation is dense but earns its space by defining an otherwise undocumented nested schema. Minor redundancy between the global 'cite the source' instruction and the source arg.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 4-parameter tool with a nested object and zero schema documentation, the description covers entry structure and sourcing well; the main omission is mutation semantics (overwrite behavior) that an agent would want before writing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does substantially: it defines part as a KiCad symbol name with wildcard match-pattern behavior, expands entry into supply/regulators/drivers structures with concrete field names, requires pin names to match the KiCad symbol, and clarifies source and verified. Gaps remain (e.g. completeness of entry types), so not a full 5.

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 action (save a part's current data from its datasheet into the user part database) and names the downstream consumer (analyze_power_budget), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_part_database. An agent can tell exactly what this tool writes and why.

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?

It gives a clear purpose-context ('so analyze_power_budget can use it'), implying the tool is a prerequisite for power-budget analysis, and requires sourcing. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming alternative siblings to use instead.

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