pcb_panelize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses that the tool mutates the active document, requires a blank document, emits several generated artifact classes, and specifies the return payload. It does not say what happens if the document isn't blank, whether prior content is wiped, or whether the operation is retryable/reversible.

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 critical precondition and effect, then a compact Args block and a Returns block; essentially no wasted sentences. Slightly long, and the Returns block partially duplicates the declared output schema, but the structure aids scanning.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers preconditions, per-parameter meaning, and outputs, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (non-blank document, existing geometry, failure modes) which an agent would have to discover empirically.

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 description compensates fully: it defines every one of the 10 parameters, including units (mils), the non-obvious semantics of border_mils ('also half the tooling inset'), and what child_path and the two flags control. This is meaning the schema titles alone could not convey.

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 ('Build a production panel on the CURRENT (blank) PCB document') and enumerates exactly what gets created: embedded-board array, panel outline, tooling holes, fiducials. The scope constraint (must run on a blank doc) immediately separates it from placement/outline tools like pcb_place_embedded_board or pcb_set_board_shape.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition narrative: 'Open a new empty .PcbDoc and run this on it,' which implies the when-not (do not run on a populated board). It does not name an alternative tool for panelizing an existing design, but no obvious sibling competes, so context is clear though not exhaustively comparative.

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