pcb_place_angular_dimension

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a placement/write operation and notes the return value, plus units and default layer, but it does not state whether an active PCB document is required, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur on the board.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose, then follows a clean Args/Returns structure. Every line earns its place, with no redundant or vague sentences.

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?

Given an 8-parameter placement tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and all parameter meanings completely enough for correct invocation. It falls short only on usage context and some behavioral details, which are minor relative to the parameter documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate for all eight parameters. It does so thoroughly: center_x/center_y define the angle vertex, x1/y1 and x2/y2 define the two reference directions, radius defines the arc radius, and layer is documented with its default, all with units in mils.

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 ("Place") and resource ("angular dimension") and clarifies that it measures the angle between two reference directions. It is distinguishable from radial-dimension siblings by the word "angular", but it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives.

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 explains what the tool does and how its arguments are interpreted, but it never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_place_radial_dimension or pcb_place_dimension. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection are provided.

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