eda_pcb_manufacture_data_place_components_order

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

The description is unusually transparent about the tool's limitations: it explicitly states that parameters have no effect (入参暂无作用) and that the return value has no actual effect and doesn't wait for execution (返回值没有实际作用，不会等待执行结果). This is valuable disclosure beyond the schema, telling an agent that calling it will not yield meaningful results. However, it doesn't explain what 'interactive checking' entails or how the user interacts, leaving some ambiguity.

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 function signature, then provides essential remarks. It's efficient with words, though it repeats the idea that parameters and return value are non-functional in two separate clauses. Overall, it's concise and easy to parse.

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 that this is a stub, the description covers the key facts: it's interactive-only, parameters do nothing, and the return value is meaningless. But it doesn't explain what 'interactive check' means, what the user sees, or whether the tool is safe to call. It also doesn't address the windowId parameter or any side effects. For a stub, it's reasonably complete, but clearer wording about it being a placeholder would improve it.

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?

The schema only provides a generic 'args' array with no per-parameter descriptions, so the description adds crucial meaning by stating that both interactive and ignoreWarning parameters currently have no effect. This prevents an agent from wasting time constructing meaningful arguments. It fully compensates for the sparse schema by clarifying that parameters are effectively placeholders.

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 the tool is about placing component orders ('元件下单') and gives the function signature, but it immediately undercuts this by saying it only supports interactive checking and parameters have no effect. This leaves the actual purpose unclear – it's a placeholder that doesn't perform a real ordering action. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like eda_pcb_manufacture_data_place_smt_components_order or eda_pcb_manufacture_data_place_pcb_order.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or conditions under which this tool should be chosen. The only hint is that it's interactive-only, but it doesn't explain what that means in practice or when a user would invoke it.

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