Set Board Origin

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the file-based edit can be overwritten by a later GUI save, and the aux origin affects specific exports. This goes beyond the structured annotations and warns the agent about a non-obvious persistence issue.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second provides a critical caveat about GUI overwrites. There is no redundancy or filler, and the information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, export relevance, and the overwrite risk. It does not explain grid origin semantics in depth, but the schema covers parameter choices, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 all parameters (boardPath, x, y, type, unit) are individually documented. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Set the auxiliary (drill/place) origin and/or grid origin') on a specific resource ('.kicad_pcb'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_board_size or get_board_origin. It also notes the file-based nature, further clarifying its scope.

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 on when to use the tool by explaining that the aux origin is the datum for export_drill and pick-and-place exports. It implies usage before those exports, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, which is a minor gap.

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