szlcsc_library_merge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that shared CAD is merged once and merging is by library classification. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, handles conflicts (despite a 'conflicts' parameter), or any side effects. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the primary action clearly, and the second adds an important nuance about shared CAD. Every word serves a purpose; there is no fluff or repetition. It is well front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain when to provide a category, what conflict strategies exist, or where output is placed. The nuance about shared CAD is helpful but insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without guessing parameter behavior. The output schema exists but description doesn't reference it.

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% — the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (timeout, category, conflicts, output_dir, library_root). An agent gets no hints about how to set these options. The baseline for 0% coverage is that the description must compensate, but it fails entirely, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings solely from names and defaults.

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 merges registered independent SchLib/PcbLib into a multi-device Altium library by classification. The verb 'merge' and resource 'libraries' are specific, and the nuance about shared CAD merging only once adds clarity. This distinguishes it from siblings like szlcsc_library_add (which adds individual parts) or szlcsc_library_sync (which synchronizes).

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 use when you have registered independent libraries and want to combine them, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites, conflict scenarios, or comparisons with sibling library tools. The rule about shared CAD merging only once is a usage note but not comprehensive.

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