apply_pcb_layout

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write op. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it applies into a NEW board revision (i.e., doesn't mutate in place) and audits the result. It still omits permissions, failure modes, and what happens to existing revisions.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though terse given the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with four fully-required undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain prerequisites, the plan/candidate relationship, and what 'audit' returns. The one-sentence description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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%, so all four parameters (project, revision, plan_id, candidate_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description loosely maps to plan_id ('recorded feasible placement plan') but says nothing about project, revision, or candidate_id, or how they relate. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (apply) and resource (a recorded feasible placement plan) plus the effect (into a new board revision) and follow-up (audit). This clearly differentiates it from sibling propose_pcb_layouts, which only generates plans. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the verb+resource are 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 phrase 'recorded feasible placement plan' hints that a plan must already exist (e.g., from propose_pcb_layouts), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement. An agent must infer the workflow order rather than being told it.

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