plan_component_placement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'validated deterministic' and 'local', and notes the millimeter unit override, but it does not disclose whether the tool mutates the design, what 'validated' means, or what 'local' scope entails. Significant behavioral aspects remain ambiguous, so transparency is inadequate.

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 succinct with two sentences, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a tool with a complex input schema, making the brevity more of a deficiency than a virtue. It is concise in structure but not appropriately sized for 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?

The tool has a complex input schema with 14 parameters and nested objects, but the description provides almost no contextual information. It lacks parameter semantics, usage scenarios, behavioral details, and any mention of the output despite the presence of an output schema. This description is far too sparse to adequately support an agent in using the tool correctly.

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 schema has 14 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter explanations. The millimeter unit note is the only hint that may relate to parameters like grid or spacing, but it does not clarify their meaning or usage. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess at parameter semantics.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a validated deterministic local component-placement plan.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'apply_component_placement_plan' and 'generate_placement_candidates' by highlighting the 'local' scope and the plan-creation nature. This is more than sufficient for purpose clarity.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual note is about millimeter units, which is a practical detail but not a usage guideline. The existence of sibling tools implies a planning workflow, but the description leaves the agent to infer when this step is appropriate.

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