place_footprint

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

Without any safety hints from annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the difference between a real footprint and a pad-less marker, the copying from library exactly as KiCad, and that the older marker behavior is kept for placeholder callers. This goes well beyond the 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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by the crucial real-vs-marker distinction, then a structured argument list. Each sentence adds information, though the argument list is somewhat long; still, it is efficient and well-organized.

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 9-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and minimal annotations, the description covers the core behaviors, parameter semantics, and points to list_lib_footprints. It could add what happens on error (e.g., library not found) but given the output schema exists and sibling tools are listed, this is adequate.

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% (no property descriptions), so the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter with examples and conditional behavior: library optional for marker, footprint required when library given, pcb_path defaults, layer options. This adds meaning the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Place a footprint on the PCB.' It clearly distinguishes between placing a real footprint (with pads and silkscreen) and a marker, which sets it apart from related tools like place_component (schematic) and move_footprint (existing footprints).

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 when to use the tool with a library/footprint vs. without, and directs users to list_lib_footprints for prerequisites. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it versus schematic placement tools, but the 'on the PCB' wording and sibling context make the boundary clear.

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