pcb_convert_coordinates

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: units are mil (1 mil = 0.001 inch), coordinates are relative to the canvas origin, and +X/+Y point right/up. It does not restate any annotation and does not contradict them.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the unit/origin conventions an agent needs. The final clause ('Use ... pcb_convert_coordinates to convert between canvas and data coordinates') is mildly circular since it restates the first sentence, a small redundancy in an otherwise tight description.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description need not explain the return value for a symmetric conversion tool. It covers units, origin, and axis conventions well; the only untouched behaviors (document auto-switch, instance auto-selection) are already fully documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare 'X coordinate'/'Y coordinate': units in mil and the origin-relative axis convention that determines how the numeric inputs must be interpreted. The direction enum values are self-explanatory and need no further gloss.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — converting between canvas and data coordinates — and immediately pins down the unit system (mil, relative to canvas origin) and axis orientation. It also names the related sibling pcb_canvas_origin, so an agent can separate this tool from the origin-management tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool is relevant (any canvas/data coordinate translation) and points to pcb_canvas_origin for the complementary origin-offset task. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or an explanation of when each direction value should be chosen, but the routing context is clear.

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