Prepare PCB Auto-layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully explains why: nothing is modified until an exact confirmation phrase is supplied, with a safety preview step. This adds real procedural context (preview-then-confirm workflow, board-outline scoping) beyond the annotations without contradicting them, since the prepare step itself is non-mutating.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action first and the non-mutation guarantee second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (nothing changes until confirmed) is front-loaded.

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 four-parameter prepare tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, where (active PCB, board outline), and the safety contract. It could be stronger by naming easyeda_confirmed_action as the follow-up step or noting that a preview/result must be retrieved, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 75% and the components parameter is already documented in the schema, including the 'unlocked components' default. The description adds the board-outline constraint but says nothing about target validation, components selection, or timeoutMs, so it does not materially extend parameter meaning.

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?

"Prepares native component auto-placement/auto-layout on the active PCB canvas within the board outline" gives a specific verb (auto-place/auto-layout) and resource (PCB components within the outline), which separates it from placement-adjacent siblings like easyeda_prepare_pcb_component and easyeda_prepare_pcb_routing. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for bulk component arrangement but the description never says when to choose it over easyeda_prepare_pcb_component (single component) or easyeda_get_pcb_placement_report (inspection). No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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