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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds real value beyond that: it runs for minutes in the background, the plan is clamped and returned as applied, it requires an accepted schematic, and only one run per design is allowed at a time. Concurrency and duration details are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three compact sentences, each front-loaded with the action or the key constraint (prerequisite, follow-up tool, concurrency limit). No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers prerequisites, runtime behavior, the returned/clamped plan, and the follow-up status tool, which is solid for a complex two-param job tool. It could do slightly more on what 'clamped' means or how failures surface, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description goes further by enumerating the plan object's expected keys (board, stated, edge, chain, groups, near, side, fixed, keepouts, netClasses) and clarifying it comes from the board guide and is clamped. That adds structure the generic schema description ('the board plan object') does not carry.

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 (start place and route) and identifies the input (the board plan). It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like route_board and auto_place by being the combined place-and-route kickoff, but never explicitly contrasts with them, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear operating context: needs an accepted schematic, one board run per design at a time, and directs the agent to follow up with get_board_status. It stops short of naming alternative tools (route_board, auto_place) or stating when not to use this one, so no explicit exclusions.

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