easyeda_auto_layout

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: it requires a write flag, preserves original results, and crucially does not auto-save (so changes are not persisted). Those save/permission semantics are genuinely additive.

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?

Four compact clauses with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Dense but every clause (permission, preservation, follow-up, save policy) carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough operational context (write flag, no auto-save, separate DRC) for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (document_uuid, session) are already documented in the schema, including the note about not auto-switching pages. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action (invoke official PCB auto-layout) on a specific resource, which clearly separates it from the sibling easyeda_auto_route. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than spelled out.

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?

It gives a precondition ('需 --allow-write') and post-steps (read back/DRC separately), which is useful workflow context. However it never contrasts when to use auto-layout versus the auto_route sibling or when not to use it, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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