pcb_place_via

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains unit handling (fractions of a mil vs millimetres), states that a hole as wide as the pad is refused, lists defaults, and describes the return. It omits permission requirements, undo behavior, and DRC implications, keeping it from 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful units caveat, then a structured Args list and Returns line. The first paragraph is slightly longer than necessary, but each sentence earns its place by preventing unit mistakes.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines units, defaults, constraints, and the return shape. It does not cover permissions or sibling-tool selection, but the core invocation is well supported.

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 fully, and it does. Every one of the 9 parameters is documented with meaning, units, defaults, and interaction (e.g., size_mm replaces size, hole_size_mm replaces hole_size, net optional empty = no net). This is exactly the semantic detail a caller needs.

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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: place a via at coordinates on the active PCB. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like pcb_place_vias or pcb_place_via_array, which handle multiple vias, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Place a via at specific coordinates,' but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this single-via tool over pcb_place_vias, pcb_place_via_array, or pcb_place_stitching_vias. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing hints.

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