align_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the atomic transaction nature, the unit handling, and the required dry-run-to-commit workflow with expected_sha256 verification. It does not discuss locked components or failure modes, but the 'allow_locked' parameter partially addresses this, and the description is notably more transparent than typical mutation tools.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: the core action, the unit caveat, and the safety workflow. No fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the most critical operational aspects: the atomic behavior, unit rule, and the dry-run/commit flow. Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, it does not clarify how the alignment enum interacts with target_value or the selector's scope, leaving some gaps for a tool with 8 parameters and a nested schema.

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 description explains the non-obvious dry_run and expected_sha256 parameters, which is valuable given the 0% schema description coverage. However, it leaves selector, alignment, allow_locked, and target_value semantically undefined, relying on their terse names and the enum. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more, but it only addresses two of eight parameters.

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 action ('Align PCB component body bboxes') and the resource ('PCB component body bboxes'), with an explicit scope ('as one semantic transaction') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_components' and 'distribute_components'. It is a specific verb+resource combination with clear intent.

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 clear usage directives: distances are always in millimetres regardless of document Units, and the dry_run=true preview must be inspected before setting dry_run=false with an expected_sha256. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., move_components), it conveys when and how to use this tool safely.

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