Check one proposed footprint position

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description supports these by noting it only reports a result ('reports ok') without asserting side effects. The description adds meaningful context about the origin-point semantics and why rotation is absent—information not present in the annotations. It gives an example of an edge case (body overlaps keep-out but origin doesn't) which improves the agent's understanding of potential false negative/positive behavior.

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 very concise—a single paragraph plus a short bullet list of parameters with one-line descriptions each. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, then uses whitespace and structure for readability. Every sentence adds value, and the note about rotation is relevant to interpretation without being verbose.

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 simple read-only check with 4 parameters and a boolean-like result, the description is highly complete. It explains the input semantics, the return behavior (reports ok), and edge cases (origin check). The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the necessary context—origin-based checks, why rotation is not needed, and how to skip pcb_path—leaving no critical gaps.

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 carries the parameter-documentation burden. The description explains the meaning of x/y as 'proposed X position' and 'proposed Y position,' reference as 'Footprint reference designator,' and provides optional behavior for pcb_path. It adds semantic value by clarifying these are the positions where the footprint would be placed, but it could provide more detail about coordinate space or allowed units.

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 purpose: 'Check if placing/moving a footprint to (x, y) would violate constraints.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the note about the origin point distinguishes this from other footprint-related tools. The tool title and description unambiguously identify what the tool does, differentiating it from sibling tools like check_footprint_bounds or validate_board.

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 explains the check is on the footprint's origin, which clarifies an important use-case nuance, and the note about the lack of a rotation parameter explicitly explains why rotation isn't present. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X,' the description implies the tool's specific role in placement validation versus other placement tools. It gives context on when the check might return 'ok' even if the footprint body overlaps a keep-out, but it could be more explicit about alternatives.

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