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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false): it documents that nothing is auto-legalized, that overlaps are deferred to run_drc, and that unknown references are reported back in 'missing'. It also explains the F/B side-flip behavior and relative-move semantics, which are genuine behavioral traits.

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 and dense with zero filler; every clause (coordinates, rotation, side flip, relative moves, no legalization, missing refs) carries information. The telegraphic sentence-plus-fragment style is slightly cramped but earns its space.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still covers conventions, mutation semantics, and error signaling ('missing'). Async/job behavior is handled by the wait_s schema description pointing to get_board_job, so the definition is complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description fills the semantic gaps richly: y grows downward, rotation is 'as KiCad shows it', side F/B flips the footprint, locked, and dx_mm/dy_mm/drot_deg are relative deltas from current position. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema field names.

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 ('put footprints') with an explicit placement mode: exact, caller-supplied coordinates. The clause 'Nothing is nudged or legalized' separates it functionally from siblings like auto_place, anneal_place, and tidy_copper without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Makes clear this is the tool for deterministic coordinate placement rather than automatic/optimizing placement, and tells the agent overlaps are left for run_drc. It gives clear selection context but never names an alternative tool explicitly or states when NOT to use it (e.g. bulk placement).

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