kicad.place_via

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but omits key behavioral details: it doesn't state that this modifies board state (destructive), what the output schema returns, or error conditions (e.g., invalid coordinates). 'Place' implies mutation but doesn't confirm it.

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?

Optimal structure: prerequisite prefix, action statement, concrete example. Three components in minimal space with no redundant text—every element earns its place.

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?

Adequate for basic invocation given the output schema exists (removing need to describe return values), but insufficient for a 5-parameter PCB tool with zero schema descriptions—missing net connectivity rules and coordinate system context.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description provides a concrete example showing numeric values, which helps infer units, but fails to explain the 'net' parameter's semantics (empty string default behavior) or distinguish 'drill' vs 'diameter' for users.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Place') + resource ('via') + scope ('at a position'). The prerequisite '[Requires open project]' immediately clarifies execution context, distinguishing it from project-level operations like create_project.

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?

Provides critical prerequisite '[Requires open project]' which prevents misuse, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like route_trace or add_wire for connectivity.

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