set_panelization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses unit behavior (millimetres regardless of document units) and the preview/write split via dry_run. However, it doesn't state side effects like whether existing panelization is overwritten or whether the write is reversible.

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 concise sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds units and safety workflow without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a mutating tool with a nested object parameter and an output schema. The description covers the critical dry-run safety workflow and unit behavior, but it relies on an external schema URI for the panel structure and doesn't mention transaction-related parameters (path/txid). It's functional but not fully self-contained for complex usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run and expected_sha256, but the required 'panel' parameter is only referenced via a schema URI, and path/txid are not described at all. The description adds meaning for two of five parameters but leaves the most important one under-specified.

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 action ('Set official DipTrace panelization parameters') and the target resource ('a PCB document'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'clear_panelization' and other set_* tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: start with dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. This is actionable, though it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions.

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