pcb_place_stitching_vias

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the default dry-run safety posture and why (N×M via mutation is risky), the exact skip rule (non-same-net pad/via/track/arc within via_size/2 + clearance), that it creates top→bottom through-vias, and that the target net must already exist 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?

Front-loaded with a one-line summary, then rationale, algorithm, a bolded safety note, and conventional Args/Returns sections — easy to scan. Slightly long; the RF rationale paragraph is useful but could be tighter.

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 mutating board tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, risk, algorithm, every argument, and the return dict's keys (net, dry_run, placed, skipped, spacing_mils, clearance_mils). Nothing an agent needs to call it safely and correctly appears to be missing.

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 fully compensates: all ten parameters are explained with units, defaults, and semantics (inclusive rectangle, bottom-left origin per Altium convention, spacing rule of thumb of λ/4 of the highest harmonic, clearance measured against any non-same-net primitive). This is meaning the schema titles alone would never 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 (place), resource (stitching vias), and scope (grid on a named net inside a rectangle), and the algorithm paragraph makes the spatial-clearance behavior concrete. It never names the closely related siblings pcb_place_via_array / pcb_place_vias, so an agent must infer the difference from behavior rather than from an explicit contrast.

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 concrete when-to-use context (RF/EMC return-path stitching around high-speed traces, near connectors, clock generators, EMI-sensitive areas) and a strong operating protocol (dry-run first, inspect placed/skipped, then re-call with dry_run=False). No explicit 'do not use for X, use tool Y instead' routing against the other via-placement tools.

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