pcb_align_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation (components are repositioned) but does not disclose whether the move is reversible/undoable, what permissions are needed, or how existing coordinates are treated. Only the return shape is described, leaving meaningful side-effect behavior undocumented.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured Args/Returns blocks. The alignment-option list is verbose but justified since the schema lacks those enum values. Minor redundancy in restating the return value when an output schema exists.

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?

Parameters are thoroughly covered and an output schema exists (so return details needn't be here), but for a no-annotation mutation tool the description omits behavioral context like reversibility and selection behavior. Adequate but with a clear gap on side effects.

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 0% and the schema declares no enum for 'alignment,' yet the description fully documents both parameters: the designator list format with an example, and every alignment mode with its precise geometric meaning. This is exactly the value the description should add beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Align multiple PCB components along a common edge or center.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling placement tools like pcb_distribute_components or pcb_move_components without naming them explicitly. An agent can identify the operation at a glance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (pcb_distribute_components, pcb_autoplace, pcb_move_components), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the operation name but nothing routes the agent between sibling tools.

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