Hierarchical Place

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint:true. The description adds critical behavioral detail: it reads and rewrites the .kicad_pcb on disk, requiring a save first, and leaves locked footprints in place. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent important safety context.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: main purpose, workflow context, and critical file/locked-footprint behavior. No filler or repetition.

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?

With one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the algorithm, when to use it, file safety, and locked-footprint handling. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for boardPath, with its own description. The tool description reinforces that the file is modified on disk but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameter fully.

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 states the exact function: 'Cluster a board's footprints by their schematic-sheet hierarchy', naming the algorithm. It also clarifies the outcome ('packs each functional block together') and frames it as a starting point for manual placement, distinguishing it from manual placement and other placement tools.

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 gives clear context: it should be used after sync_schematic_to_board has piled footprints at the origin, and before manual placement. It also includes a precondition to save in-memory edits first. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.