plan_silkscreen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds useful behavioral details: 'deterministic' and the millimetres unit override regardless of document Units. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether an existing plan is overwritten, whether it is reversible, or what exactly 'persist' entails.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The units note is essential. The 'Input schema' reference is somewhat redundant since the schema is already attached, but it does not add significant bloat.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and a workflow that likely involves planning before applying (suggested by sibling apply_silkscreen_plan), the description lacks prerequisites, assumptions, and parameter context. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing operational guidance.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the 8 parameters. The units note only hints at length-related fields but doesn't describe grid, clearance, selector, or other options.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate and persist') and identifies the resource ('legal silkscreen placement plan'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_silkscreen and apply_silkscreen_plan. The scope is unambiguous.

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. Sibling tools such as check_silkscreen and apply_silkscreen_plan exist, but the description does not mention them or indicate a recommended workflow order.

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