distribute_components

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that operations are transactional, that all distances are in millimetres regardless of document units, and that commit requires inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. This is substantial safety-relevant behavior beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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-loads the core purpose, and each sentence contributes distinct information (what, unit guarantee, safety protocol). No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, nested objects) and low schema coverage, the description provides a good safety workflow and key constraints, but it omits crucial parameter semantics (selector format, axis meaning, mode differences, spacing value interpretation). An output schema exists, but the input-side gaps make it only partially complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for dry_run and expected_sha256 (preview-then-commit workflow) and clarifies units for spacing. However, it does not explain selector, axis, mode, spacing, path, txid, or allow_locked, leaving significant gaps for a 9-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('Distribute') and resource ('PCB components') with a scope constraint ('at least three') and a distinctive trait ('transactionally'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_components or align_components.

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 context for when to use this tool (distributing components) and includes a safety protocol (preview with dry_run, then commit with expected_sha256). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it misses the top tier, but the usage context is distinctly implied.

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