Assemble PCB Layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether applying the placement overwrites the existing layout, requires a specific file state, or has any side effects. This is a mutation tool on a KiCad PCB, but no behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 one front-loaded sentence stating the core action, followed by a useful pointer to instructions. It is compact with no redundant information, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 that modifies a PCB file, with no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description is too sparse. It omits behavioral context, parameter meaning for 'layout_id', and usage guidance. The reference to instructions.md is a crutch, but the description itself is incomplete.

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 only 50%; 'path' has a description but 'layout_id' does not. The description adds no meaning for 'layout_id' or any parameter details. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving a gap in the tool's invocation semantics.

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 'Apply' and identifies the resource 'a stored placement to one KiCad PCB'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'make_pcb_layout', which would imply creating a placement. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as 'make_pcb_layout'. It only states what it does without mentioning contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The reference to instructions.md is external and not a substitute for inline usage guidance.

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