plan_schematic_placement_repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral facts: 'wired-safe' (likely non-destructive to wiring) and 'moves are fixed' (possibly meaning the planned moves are deterministic), and clarifies that distances are always in millimetres regardless of document units. However, it omits other behaviors such as whether the tool modifies state, requires a transaction, or returns a plan for later use.

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 exceptionally brief—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. However, the first sentence is vague and the second sentence's mention of units is valuable but off-topic. No unnecessary filler; it earns its length but could be more informative.

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 has a complex input schema (nested moves array) and an output schema, the description does not explain what the plan output looks like or how it will be used. It also lacks any mention of side effects or state changes. The unit clarification is useful but does not compensate for the missing operational and return-value details.

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%—the tool description adds no parameter information. The schema itself includes descriptions for 'part', 'x_mm', and 'y_mm', but the description does not explain how the 'moves' array works or how 'path' relates to the planning context. Since description must compensate for low coverage, it fails to do so.

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 states the tool 'plans placement repair and selective affected-net reroute', which identifies the general action and resource. However, it lacks a specific verb+resource structure and does not clarify what 'plan' entails (e.g., generating a plan for later application). It distinguishes from the sibling 'apply_schematic_placement_repair_plan' implicitly via the planning vs. applying contrast, but not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'plan_component_placement' or 'apply_schematic_placement_repair_plan'. The description neither states prerequisites nor suggests exclusions. It only hints at a workflow ('plan' before 'apply') but does not make it explicit.

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