Add Mounting Hole

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds context by noting that it creates NPTH or PTH holes. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is irreversible or what happens to existing board geometry. The description is consistent with the annotations, and the additional context about hole type provides some value beyond the structured data.

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 one concise sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundancy or irrelevant information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's simplicity and the fact that the output schema and annotations are available, the description is adequate to convey the core functionality. It covers the essential purpose and hole type. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the board modification aspect (though this is implied by the annotations) and might mention the optional padDiameter parameter for completeness, but this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (position, diameter, padDiameter). The description adds no new parameter semantics; it merely references 'specified position' but does not elaborate on units, relationships, or defaults. Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Place') and clearly identifies the resource ('mounting hole') and its purpose ('on the PCB'). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling placement tools like add_via by specifying that it creates NPTH or PTH mounting holes.

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 the tool should be used when a mounting hole needs to be placed on the PCB, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., add_via for vias). No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided, though the tool's specific function makes the usage context clear.

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