Add Board Text

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds no extra behavioral details like side effects, board requirements, or error conditions. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence (13 words) that front-loads the verb 'Add' and the resource, making it immediately understandable. No unnecessary information.

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 an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description is adequate for the tool's complexity. It conveys the core action and target clearly, though it lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open board) or behavioral caveats, which are minor for a simple add operation.

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%, with all 7 parameters described in the schema. The description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Add a text label to a PCB layer' with examples (silkscreen, fab, courtyard). This distinguishes it from similar tools like add_schematic_text, which targets schematics, and other board-adding tools.

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 provides context by specifying PCB layers, making it clear the tool is for board text, not schematic text. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use add_schematic_text for schematic text', so it lacks explicit guidance.

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