place_component

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Place,' implying a write operation, but omits details like whether it modifies the board permanently, checks for conflicts, or requires specific permissions. The presence of an output schema suggests return values, but the description does not hint at side effects or behavior beyond the action.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is too brief, sacrificing essential context. It earns a 3 because it is succinct but lacks the detail needed for a tool with many parameters.

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 complexity (7 parameters, none described), the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an AI agent to understand the domain (PCB design), the nature of 'footprint' (library reference), or the outcome (adding a new component). The existence of an output schema helps but is not referenced.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It does not mention any parameters, leaving the meaning of 'reference,' 'footprint,' 'x,' 'y,' 'rotation,' 'layer,' and 'value' entirely to the schema names, which are insufficient for an AI agent to correctly populate them.

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 'Place a footprint on the board' clearly states the action (place) and resource (footprint on board). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like move_component or delete_component, which suggest different operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself or mention component placement context.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as required libraries or board state, nor exclusions for cases where other placement tools (e.g., move_component) would be more appropriate.

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