pcb_copy_component_placement

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that destination placement is overwritten (a destructive, non-additive effect), that sources must already be placed, that flags control whether text placements are also overwritten, and how failures are reported per pair. It omits reversibility/undo behavior and any edit-mode or document-state prerequisites, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Structure is strong – purpose first, then the concrete channel-replication scenario, then args, then returns – so the key constraint is front-loaded. Some prose is decorative ('Saves the manual click-and-drag-drag-drag') and the Args block partially duplicates what a richer schema would say, but with 0% schema coverage it earns most of its length.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, preconditions, destructive effect, parameter meanings, and the failure model (applied/failed/items). An output schema exists, yet the Returns block still adds useful semantics about partial success, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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% – the input schema only has titles and defaults – so the description must carry the whole load, and it does: mapping is defined as {source_designator: dest_designator} with the precondition that each source is already placed, and both booleans are spelled out in terms of exactly what text properties get cloned, with their defaults restated.

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 verb and resource: clone PCB placement (layer, X, Y, rotation) from source components onto destinations, plus optional designator/comment text. It is clearly a placement-copy operation, but it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings like pcb_replicate_layout, pcb_import_placement, or pcb_align_components, so the agent must infer which one to pick.

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 'Real-world use' paragraph gives a concrete triggering scenario (N identical channels, lay out channel 1 then replicate) with a sample mapping, which makes the when-to-use condition clear. It does not say when NOT to use it or name the alternative tool for overlapping cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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