place_relative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious traits: Y grows downward, and angle_deg is an absolute rotation (not a delta), which prevents a likely misuse. However, as a mutation tool it says nothing about locking, error behavior, or whether the offset is applied relative to the anchor's rotation.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence and the args block is terse, with every line carrying unique information. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no explanation. But for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description omits side-effect context such as whether the move is undoable or constrained by locked footprints, leaving a meaningful gap.

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, and it does: all five parameters are documented, including the coordinate convention for dx_mm/dy_mm and the crucial clarification that angle_deg is absolute and optional. It adds real meaning the bare schema cannot convey.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (place) and resource (footprint) plus the precise positional semantic (offset from another footprint's origin). It is clearly distinct from plain move_footprint or rotate_footprint, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 description explains what the parameters mean but never says when to choose this over move_footprint, place_near_pad, or place_on_edge, which are the obvious alternatives in this family. An agent must infer the relative-vs-absolute use case entirely on its own.

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