pcb_set_footprint_layer

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

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which already signals a destructive behavior. The description adds no further detail about the side effects of setting the footprint copper side, such as whether it flips the footprint, changes connectivity, or only affects the layer assignment. Thus, the description provides no behavioral transparency beyond the annotation.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information about parameters and usage context, making it insufficiently sized to be helpful. The brevity comes at the expense of completeness.

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 two required, undocumented parameters and a destructive annotation, the description is not complete enough. The agent cannot infer valid layer values, the meaning of 'reference', or the impact of the operation. Even with an output schema present, the input semantics are entirely missing, leaving the tool unusable without external assumptions.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its two required parameters. The description only mentions the resource ('copper side') but does not explain that 'reference' refers to the footprint's reference designator or which values the 'layer' parameter accepts (e.g., top/bottom, front/back). With such low schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Set' and resource 'footprint copper side' to indicate the action performed by the tool. It clearly identifies the tool's primary function, though it does not distinguish it from related footprint tools like pcb_get_footprint_layers or pcb_move_footprint.

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. It lacks any context about the typical scenario (e.g., flipping a footprint to the opposite copper layer) or any exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback tools.

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