Align Components

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain that components will be repositioned, how the referenceComponent anchors alignment, or what happens to existing placements. No annotation contradiction exists.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and key options. It avoids redundancy with the schema and contains no filler.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with four parameters, an output schema, and annotations, all of which cover most contextual needs. The description conveys the core operation effectively, though it relies on the schema for parameter details and offers no guidance on referenceComponent semantics or when to use the tool.

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 meaningful descriptions for all parameters, including the enum for alignmentType and the unit for spacing. The description adds no 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 aligns multiple PCB components and enumerates the alignment modes (horizontal, vertical, grid) plus optional spacing. It is specific about the action and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like batch_move_components or place_component_array.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_move_components or place_component_array. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or examples of appropriate use beyond the implied meaning of the name and description.

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