pcb_block_create_from_selection

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

With empty annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the selection is consumed, whether a new block is added to the library, or whether it overwrites existing blocks), nor any prerequisites beyond 'selected footprint references'.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it might be too sparse to be considered a well-structured explanation.

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 creation tool with two required parameters and no annotations, the description lacks essential context such as how references are specified, whether it uses the current PCB selection, and what the tool returns. The output schema exists but is not available in the description.

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% and the description barely explains the parameters. 'references' is hinted at as 'selected footprint references' but its format (e.g., reference designators) is undefined, and 'name' is completely unexplained.

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 the verb 'Capture' with a specific object ('reusable PCB design block') and source ('selected footprint references'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling block tools like pcb_block_list and pcb_block_place.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'from selected footprint references' implies it operates on currently selected footprints, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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