Plan safe schematic drawing region

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds beyond that: it uses live sheet info, assumes bottom-left coordinates, reserves default lower-right title-block keep-out, and returns a plan. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds key details. Highly efficient.

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 complexity (6 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description is brief but covers core function. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., sheet must be active for live info) but is largely sufficient. Output schema covers return values.

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 50%, and the tool description does not add meaning beyond what is in the schema. Parameters like 'margin' and 'projectId' lack schema descriptions and are not explained in the description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 it computes a safe schematic drawing region before placing components, specifying it uses live sheet info, assumes EasyEDA coordinates, reserves title-block keep-out, and returns a plan avoiding overlap. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'easyeda_schematic_place_component' or 'easyeda_schematic_check_collisions'.

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 says 'before placing components' implying when to use, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, relying on context.

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