eda_pcb_primitive_component_place_cbb_pcb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the return type (Promise<boolean>, '放置操作是否成功'). It does not disclose side effects, coordinate system/units, whether placement is interactive, or what the optional 'reimportWhenNameRepeated' flag actually does behaviorally. For a placement tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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 compact – a signature line, a one-line purpose, and a returns note. No filler. The signature is dense but information-rich, though it could be marginally better organized with the purpose stated first.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it places, key parameters, boolean success return) but omits context an agent needs for correct invocation: coordinate units (mm vs mil), whether the CBB must already exist in a library, and failure semantics beyond a false return.

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 input schema is generic (an array of JSON parameters plus a windowId), so it carries no real parameter semantics. The description compensates by exposing the full typed signature: the cbbPcb object with libraryUuid/cbbUuid/uuid fields, x/y coordinates, and the optional props.reimportWhenNameRepeated boolean. This adds genuine meaning the schema lacks.

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 verb and resource ('放置复用模块 PCB' – place reusable module PCB), and the embedded signature clarifies it places a CBB PCB at coordinates. It is distinguishable as the PCB-flavored placement tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling placement tools like place_footprint_with_mouse or the schematic-page CBB placement tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are closely related siblings (eda_sch_primitive_component_place_cbb_schematic_page, place_footprint_with_mouse, place_component_with_mouse), and the description gives no context for choosing among them, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the CBB needing to exist in a library.

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