Add Footprint 3d Model

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds behavioral context by stating it can "replace" an existing model and by noting support for KiCAD path variables. It does not contradict annotations. It is transparent about the mutation and adds useful detail beyond the annotation flags.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: what it does, supported path variables, and when to use it. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a moderately complex tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, timing (after create_footprint), and impact (3D viewer). It does not repeat parameter details (schema covers those), making it functionally complete for typical usage. Slight gap: no mention of what happens if the file or model is missing, but that is covered by the schema and annotations reasonably well.

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 100%, with all properties documented. The description reinforces the path variable behavior already mentioned in modelPath's schema, but adds minimal new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action: "Attach (or replace) a 3D model — .step/.stp/.wrl — to a .kicad_mod footprint file." This is a specific verb+resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like import_3d_model or add_component_3d_model, but the target (a footprint file) is uniquely identified, giving strong clarity.

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?

Provides clear context: "Use this after create_footprint so the part shows up in the 3D viewer (Alt+3)." This gives a sequencing guideline and expected outcome. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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