pcb_block_place

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that placement works by cloning saved footprint blocks (non-destructive), but it does not state side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or whether it modifies the board irreversibly.

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 concise sentence (13 words) with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 4 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks critical context such as coordinate system origin, units, rotation behavior, and the requirement that the block already exists. The output schema covers return values, but usage context is insufficient.

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 four parameters. It only indirectly references block_name through 'stored PCB design block', while x_mm, y_mm, and rotation_deg are entirely unaddressed.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Place') and resource ('stored PCB design block'), and the mechanism ('by cloning its saved footprint blocks'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pcb_block_list and pcb_block_create_from_selection.

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 implies usage for placing a pre-existing block, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions.

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