Snap To Grid

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint; the description adds specificity by stating it 'Modifies the .kicad_sch file in place' and notes that the KiCAD UI need not be running. It also explains the technical rationale for snapping, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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 focused sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence adds value: what the tool does, why it matters, and key side-effects/prerequisites. The warning about grid size is embedded in the schema rather than bloating the description.

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 tool with a modest scope and rich schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, rationale, in-place mutation, and lack of UI dependency. An output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable. The tool's complexity aligns well with the description's completeness.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including default values and the component opt-in caveat. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 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?

Description specifies the action (snap), target (schematic element coordinates), and result (to nearest grid point). It also explains why this is needed (KiCAD's integer-based connectivity matching), clearly distinguishing it from general move/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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when off-grid elements may cause connectivity/ERC issues. It also notes that component snapping is opt-in due to potential mismatches. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., lint_offgrid for detection) or state when not to use this tool.

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