Create Footprint

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds context about the library directory and supported features, which is mildly useful. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior (despite an overwrite parameter) or that the library path may be created if missing. The description adds some value beyond annotations but leaves out behavioral details that could affect invocation.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action ('Create a new KiCAD footprint') and includes the file format and directory. Every word contributes value; there is no repetition or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of a detailed schema and output schema, the description provides a sufficient high-level overview. It explains the core purpose and capabilities, leaving detailed parameter semantics to the schema. It is slightly lacking in usage guidance (no mention of when to use vs. editing tools) and does not surface the overwrite safety behavior, but these are partially covered by annotations and schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only lightly touches on parameters (e.g., SMD/THT pads, courtyard, silkscreen, fab-layer rectangles) without adding syntax or relationships not already in the schema. It adds no significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 what the tool does: 'Create a new KiCAD footprint (.kicad_mod) inside a .pretty library directory.' It names the specific resource (KiCAD footprint), the file format, and the target directory. It also lists supported content types (SMD/THT pads, courtyard, silkscreen, fab-layer rectangles), which helps distinguish it from other creation tools like create_symbol or create_project.

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 usage for creating new footprints in a .pretty library, with support for pads and graphic rectangles. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude them, but the phrasing 'Create a new' and the specific resource make the intended use clear. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, but the context is unambiguous among siblings.

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