apply_ps7_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the concrete wiring effects (FIXED_IO / DDR / clocks) but omits whether existing configuration is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, and what prerequisites are required.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by concrete effects and a GUI analogy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly. It could still mention block-design prerequisites or side effects on existing PS7 configuration, but the core context is present.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description implies the cell target and board-preset behavior but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: apply the Zynq-7000 processing_system7 board preset to a PS7 cell. It adds concrete effects (wires FIXED_IO / DDR / clocks per board definition) and a GUI equivalent, making it distinguishable from generic BD configuration siblings.

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 clear usage context: apply to a freshly added PS7, equivalent to Run Block Automation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as configure_bd_cell or state when not to use this tool.

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