szlcsc_library_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it mentions deduplication and optional Altium library generation, it fails to explain side effects (e.g., overwriting existing entries, file creation, required permissions) or the behavior of key flags like rebuild_cad or import_missing. The safety profile remains opaque.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and a few features, which is concise but not well-structured. It could be broken into clear statements for readability. There is no wasted text, but it does not earn a higher score due to missing logical separation.

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?

Considering the high parameter count (9) and absence of schema descriptions, the description should provide a usage overview or example. It does not explain the process of registering devices, the format of identifiers, or the effect of boolean parameters. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input guidance.

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%, and the description only indirectly references identifiers (C number) and dedupe_cad (MPN+package). None of the other 7 parameters (e.g., preview, timeout, library_root, altium_output_root) are explained. This is insufficient given the parameter count.

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 registers devices into a local library, retains procurement metadata via C number, uses MPN+package for CAD deduplication, and can generate Altium libraries. This specific verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like szlcsc_library_search or szlcsc_library_sync.

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 implies the tool is for adding parts to a local library but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. It provides context about deduplication and Altium generation, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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