sch_place_no_erc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral consequence — that the marker persists and suppresses ERC results — plus the coordinate unit. However, it says nothing about whether the marker is visible/removable, whether suppression is permanent or scoped to a violation type, or what permissions/state are required.

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 action and its purpose, followed by a tight usage sentence and terse Args/Returns blocks. The Returns line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but overall there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return description is not strictly needed. For a two-parameter mutation on a schematic, however, the definition omits the coordinate frame, the marker's persistence/removal story, and how it maps to a specific violation — gaps an agent would hit when placing more than a trivial marker.

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% (only bare "X"/"Y" titles), so the description must compensate. It usefully adds the unit (mils) for both coordinates, which is real value the schema lacks, but leaves the coordinate reference frame (absolute schematic origin vs. relative, sheet vs. canvas) and grid/rounding behavior undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Place a No-ERC marker") plus the effect ("suppress specific ERC violations"), so the agent knows exactly what object is being created and why. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby ERC-related siblings like proj_run_erc, proj_get_erc_violations, or sch_add_directive, which keeps it out of the 5 tier.

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?

"Use this after running ERC to suppress known-good violations at specific pin or wire locations" gives a clear trigger condition and narrows the scope to pin/wire locations. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., versus sch_add_directive or fixing the design instead of suppressing).

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