add_footprint_inner_layer_graphic

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no context about what is modified, whether existing graphics are overwritten, or how the footprint block is affected. The verb 'inject' gives only a vague sense of addition without behavioral details.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff, but it is under-sized for the complexity of the tool. It is concise but not appropriately sized, omitting essential information that the schema cannot fully convey.

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 tool with 9 parameters, a destructive annotation, and no parameter guidance, a one-line description is grossly insufficient. The output schema alone cannot compensate for missing context about shape types, layer conventions, or coordinate usage.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters. Critical parameters like shape_type, layer, and the coordinate pair x1_mm/y1_mm remain completely undefined, leaving the agent unable to choose valid values.

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 uses a specific verb 'inject' and identifies the resource as an 'inner-layer graphic primitive' within a 'footprint block', which clearly differentiates it from board-level graphics tools like pcb_add_circle or pcb_add_rectangle. It precisely states what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as footprint editing or board-level graphics tools. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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