legalize_component_placement

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

The only behavioral detail is that all distances are in millimetres regardless of the document's Units attribute. This is useful but minor. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, reversibility, or safety; it reveals almost nothing about what the tool actually does to the placement.

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 short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified. The phrase 'Preset: plan_component_placement' is cryptic and the 'Input schema' line feels like a technical reference rather than an explanation. While concise, it sacrifices all substance; this is underspecification, not effective conciseness.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested selector object, output schema, and numerous sibling tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's functionality, expected use, or how it relates to 'plan_component_placement.' The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of core purpose and parameter semantics.

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 provides zero explanation of the seven parameters (grid, spacing, selector, search_steps, time_budget_ms, board_edge_clearance, path). The schema is referenced but not summarized, and schema coverage in the description is 0%. The 'Input schema' pointer is not a substitute for explaining what each parameter means or how they interact.

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 says 'Preset: plan_component_placement,' which alludes to a relationship with a sibling tool but does not explicitly state what 'legalize_component_placement' does. It lacks a verb and resource; the purpose is opaque. This is not a tautology but is vague enough to be misleading about its actual function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'plan_component_placement' and 'apply_component_placement_plan' are related, but the description offers no distinctions or recommendations. No context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios is provided.

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