Set Footprint Type

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive/non-read-only. The description adds valuable behavior context: the placement type controls inclusion in pick-and-place files, and exclude_from_pos_files suppresses exports without altering the type. It explains a subtle distinction that goes beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence provides non-redundant information. It avoids restating schema details and stays under 50 words.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, 2 required) and existing output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, target resource, and a key side effect (.pos inclusion). It does not explicitly discuss BOM/schematic flags, but those are adequately described in the schema. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the functional relationship between 'type' and .pos export behavior, and clarifying that exclude_from_pos_files is distinct from changing the type. This adds meaningful semantic nuance not present in the schema.

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 ('Set the placement type... and optional exclusion flags') on a specific resource ('a placed PCB footprint'). It names the three type values and explains the concrete effect on pick-and-place output, distinguishing it from generic editing 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is for setting placement type and exclusion flags on already-placed footprints, affecting .pos export. It also gives parameter-specific guidance ('Use exclude_from_pos_files to suppress... without changing its type'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intent is clear.

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