Set pin assignments

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool modifies the project file (QSF), may overwrite existing assignments, or requires Quartus to be installed. The clearExisting parameter hints at overwriting, but the description itself does not state side effects or safety considerations.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with key information. However, adding a second sentence for context would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Despite 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, timeout behavior, or the need for Quartus installation. For a tool that modifies project settings, more context is needed to ensure correct 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 coverage is 86%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'direct assignments' and 'resource bindings' but does not elaborate on how these two modes work or the relationships between parameters like boardPreset and resourceBindings. It meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 purpose: applying direct pin assignments or board-preset resource bindings to an existing Quartus project. It uses specific verbs (apply, using set_location_assignment) and identifies the resource (pin assignments/bindings). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like quartus_create_project or quartus_list_board_presets.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use resourceBindings vs direct assignments, or prerequisites like having an open project). Users must infer from the description that an existing Quartus project is required, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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