add_text

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. Beyond those, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: bottom-layer mirroring, fabs clipping silk over exposed copper, and JLC manufacturing minimums baked into defaults. This is genuine added transparency and consistent with the annotations.

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?

Dense single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, and most sentences carry unique information. It leans on jargon (fabs, JLC) and could be broken into structured lines, but there is little waste.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key inputs, layer semantics, manufacturing constraints, and clipping behavior. It does not address return values or error cases, but the practical guidance is otherwise sufficient to call 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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well for the non-obvious params: layer accepted values, size_mm as character height, ratio_pct as stroke percentage, and align options. It omits angle/x/y, but those are largely self-evident from their names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add board text') with an illustrative use case ('silkscreen pin labels'). It is the only text-adding tool among the siblings, and the description makes its domain unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 implies usage (silk labels, docs) and adds a practical constraint ('Keep text off pads: fabs clip silk over exposed copper'), but never states when to use this vs alternatives or any prerequisites. Context is present, explicit routing is not.

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