flip_footprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key side effect (mirrored in place on the opposite board side), but says nothing about permissions, selection requirements, what happens on failure, or whether the footprint's position is otherwise preserved.

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 the effect front-loaded and the parameter restated compactly. Every line earns its place; no 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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential transformation without needing to explain return values. It stops short on error/precondition behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'reference: Footprint to flip.' clarifies that the parameter identifies the target footprint, but doesn't specify the expected format (e.g. a reference designator like 'R1'), leaving a meaningful 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?

States a specific verb (flip/move) and resource (footprint), and the parenthetical 'front <-> back, mirrored in place' precisely distinguishes it from siblings like move_footprint and rotate_footprint. An agent can tell this is a side-swap operation without opening the 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?

The action is clear but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to the many placement siblings (move_footprint, rotate_footprint, place_near_pad). Usage is only implied by the stated effect.

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