add_module_to_bd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden well: it names the underlying Tcl operation, explains how `config` maps to module parameters, and notes the non-obvious quoting behavior for string parameters. It does not mention failure modes, duplicate cell-name behavior, or side effects, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences front-load the core action and follow with only the config syntax needed to invoke the tool correctly. Every sentence adds usable information without repetition.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main invocation details: source prerequisite, target context, underlying command, and config syntax. It could be slightly more complete by stating that a block design must be open or what happens if the cell already exists.

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 meaningful detail: `config` sets module parameters in `CONFIG.*` form, with a concrete example and an important rule about preserving quotes for string values. This goes beyond the schema’s brief 'Dict of CONFIG.* parameters'.

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 action—adding an RTL module to the current block design—and names the underlying Vivado command (`create_bd_cell -type module -reference`). It clearly distinguishes the resource as an RTL module rather than an IP, which helps separate it from siblings like add_ip_to_bd.

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?

It gives useful context by pointing to add_sources for getting the RTL into the project and specifies that the module is added to the current block design. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to add_ip_to_bd or state prerequisites such as an open block design.

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