Autoplace Schematic Fields

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the heuristic (avoid collisions with components/net labels), the net-label awareness compared to KiCAD, and the optional limitation by references. This adds value without contradicting the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase earns its place. It packs a lot of semantic content (what, where, how, and optionality) into a compact, readable form without redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the core algorithm, constraints, and optional filtering. It doesn't describe the return value, but the output schema likely covers that. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like whether the schematic must be open, but the file path parameter implies direct file editing. Overall, sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description independently mentions 'Optionally limit to specific references,' reinforcing the references parameter, but adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 ('reposition'), names the exact resources ('Reference and Value field'), and describes the outcome (outside body and net labels, avoiding collisions). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on field auto-placement rather than component or net label movement, making it unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use it ('Automatically reposition...', 'Like KiCAD's built-in field auto-placement but net-label aware') and implies it is for cleaning up field placement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., manual property position setters) or when not to use it, 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.