Register Footprint Library

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds useful workflow context (error-recovery trigger) but does not disclose what exactly is modified (e.g., overwriting the fp-lib-table entry) or any side effects. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and resource, then follow with a practical usage trigger. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists and the input schema is comprehensive, the description covers the key workflow trigger. It lacks explicit details about side effects or scope implications, but these are in the schema/annotations, making the description sufficiently complete for a simple registration 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% parameter description coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameters, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 a specific action ('Register a .pretty footprint library') on a specific resource (KiCAD's fp-lib-table), with a clear goal ('so KiCAD can find the footprints'). It also distinguishes from related tools like create_footprint by specifying its role in the workflow.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Run this after create_footprint when KiCAD shows "library not found in footprint library table"'. This gives a concrete trigger and workflow position. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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