eda_pcb_primitive_component_place_footprint_with_mouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the method returns immediately after binding the footprint to the mouse, without waiting for the user's placement action, and that it returns a boolean indicating whether the footprint was found. It also notes it simulates a front-end button click. This covers the key asynchronous and interactive behavior.

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, starting with the API signature, then a brief remarks note, and then two sentences explaining behavior and return semantics. Each sentence contributes to understanding the tool, with no redundant filler.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior: it is interactive (requires user click), returns immediately, and indicates success via boolean. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites like an open PCB document, but the core functionality and return semantics are sufficiently explained for an agent 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?

The schema only describes args as a JSON array and windowId, but the description includes the actual function signature specifying the footprint object structure (libraryUuid, uuid) and optional properties record. This adds meaningful type and structure information beyond the schema, helping the agent construct valid arguments.

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 clearly states the verb (place) and resource (footprint) with '使用鼠标放置封装'. The inclusion of the full API signature leaves no ambiguity about what is being placed. It differentiates from siblings by specifying footprint rather than component, and the name itself reinforces this.

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 explains how the tool works (simulates a click, binds to mouse, places on subsequent click) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like place_component_with_mouse. Usage context is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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