pcb_copy_designators_to_mech

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains what object type is created and why (assembly drawing durable against silkscreen edits), but omits key mutation behavior: whether repeat calls duplicate text, whether existing designator text is replaced, and whether the board must be open/active.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns blocks are short. Slight redundancy in restating the return shape that the output schema already covers, but nothing is bloated.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, purpose and effect are adequately conveyed. What is missing is the idempotency/precondition information that determines whether an agent can safely call it twice or on any board state.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single `layer` param. It clarifies that `layer` is a *mechanical* layer and repeats the default 'Mechanical1', but adds no accepted value format or naming rules beyond what the schema default already shows, leaving the gap only partly closed.

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 and resource (copy component designators onto a mechanical layer) plus the concrete mechanism: it places `.Designator` special-string text over every component. That is far more specific than the tool name alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with silkscreen-placement siblings such as pcb_autoplace_silkscreen.

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 parenthetical '(assembly prep)' and the clause 'for an assembly drawing that survives silkscreen edits' imply when to use it. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no named alternative for putting designators on silkscreen, and no stated preconditions (active board, existing components).

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