apply_component_placement_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that dry_run=true previews without writing, and that committing requires expected_sha256, which implies a safety check. It does not mention mismatch handling or rollback, but key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. The dry_run/expected_sha256 guidance is concise and directly actionable.

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 main workflow and safety mechanism, and the output schema handles return values. However, it does not explain the txid parameter or the relationship to transaction lifecycle tools like begin_transaction/commit_transaction, leaving some context gaps.

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 the description must compensate. It explains dry_run (preview mode) and expected_sha256 (hash from preview), but plan_id and txid are left to inference from names and the transactional context. Partial compensation, not complete.

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 stages or commits a stored component-placement plan transactionally. This distinguishes it from siblings like plan_component_placement (which creates plans) and apply_route_plan/apply_silkscreen_plan (which apply other plan types).

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 explicit workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, but the workflow is clear and actionable.

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