pcb_add_mounting_holes

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals potential destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds context about the location and nature of the footprints but does not disclose side effects or what may be overwritten, leaving the full behavioral impact unclear.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Append') and specifies the object and location. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy.

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 5 configurable parameters and a destructive hint, the description is too sparse. It does not explain parameter effects, defaults, or potential board modifications, leaving the agent needing to infer behavior from parameter names alone.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters but 0% description coverage, and the description provides no additional meaning for any parameter. Terms like 'pattern', 'margin_mm', and 'allow_open_board' are only listed by name without explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Append') and clearly identifies the resource ('standard mounting-hole footprints') and location ('around the current board frame'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_add_via or pcb_add_fiducial_marks.

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 phrase 'around the current board frame' provides clear context for when to use this tool (adding mounting holes). However, it does not mention alternatives or situations where another tool would be preferred, only implicit exclusion.

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