place_on_edge

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail — that angle_deg rotation is applied first — but says nothing about whether the move is destructive to prior placement, what happens if the part extends past the edge, or any permission/error behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact arg list where every entry earns its place. No filler, though the arg block could be marginally tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all five parameters are documented. The remaining gap is behavioral context (idempotency, failure modes, permissions) for a mutation tool with no annotations — helpful but not strictly required to invoke correctly.

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 carry all parameter meaning, and it does: reference target, enumerated edge values, inset_mm defined as edge-to-courtyard distance, along_mm clarified as absolute coordinate with axis mapping and default-to-middle behavior, and angle_deg's absolute-first semantics. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 (place) plus resource (part against a board edge) and gives concrete use-case examples (connectors, sensors, switches). It is clearly distinguishable from move_footprint or place_near_pad in intent, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 use-case examples (connectors, sensors, switches) imply when someone would reach for edge placement, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance against alternatives like place_near_pad, place_relative, arrange_row, or move_footprint. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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