Place Component Array

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, setting the baseline. The description adds context about the array nature but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as collision handling, overwriting existing components, or whether the operation is reversible. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial behavior beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place with no filler or 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?

Given an output schema is present and the input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core operation. It could mention prerequisites or edge cases but the structured data already covers parameter and return details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level meaning (e.g., 'identical components', 'rectangular grid array') but does not clarify parameter semantics like spacing units, direction of rows/columns, or the role of optional parameters, leaving the schema to carry the full details.

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 resource ('rectangular grid array of identical components on the PCB') that clearly distinguishes it from single-component placement tools like place_component or hierarchical_place. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs.

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 when to use this tool (when you need a rectangular array of identical components) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like place_component or batch_move_components. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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