add_pcb_text

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

Annotations are all false, so they provide no safety or side-effect information, leaving the description to carry the full disclosure burden. The description explains the pcb_path default behavior but does not mention mutation scope, error handling, file modifications, or return values. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by an Args list. Each line adds concrete value without redundancy or unnecessary fluff, keeping it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

With six parameters and annotations that provide no supporting context, the description covers all parameter semantics and the core action. It does not mention coordinate units or return behavior, but the existence of an output schema (if populated) would likely address return expectations. Overall, it is adequately complete for a PCB text-addition tool.

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 is the primary source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter, provides concrete layer examples ('F.SilkS', 'B.SilkS', 'F.Fab'), and clarifies pcb_path optionality with a default behavior. This strongly compensates for the bare schema, though some details like coordinate units are absent.

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 tool adds text to a PCB with specific layers (silkscreen, fab, etc.). The verb 'Add' and resource 'the PCB' make the purpose unambiguous, and it immediately distinguishes from the schematic-oriented add_text sibling by naming PCB layers.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'silkscreen, fab layer, etc.' and the PCB scope, but it does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like add_text or add_pcb_line. It gives enough context to infer when to use it, though without explicit exclusions or direct sibling comparisons.

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