add_pcb_text

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with adding text. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as side effects, permissions, or board state requirements. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise with a clear one-line summary followed by a parameter list. It uses standard docstring format. No redundant information.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are not needed. However, missing context includes prerequisites (e.g., board must be open), handling of default pcb_path, and interaction with existing text.

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 explain parameters. It provides minimal descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Text content', 'X position'), adds examples for layer and unit for rotation, and clarifies pcb_path. These add some meaning but are largely redundant with parameter names.

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, specifying layers like silkscreen and fab layer. The name 'add_pcb_text' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_text' (schematic) and other add tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for PCB text but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use schematic text tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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