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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the mutation model: blocking copper is ripped (never a poured net), open nets are routed first, then ripped nets are rerouted around them. It also explains the quality gate—each round is kept only if KiCad counts fewer unconnected items—which is key behavioral context for a routing mutation tool.

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, constraints, and usage guidance are front-loaded and information-dense. The semicolon-heavy single sentence and phrases like 'the way a designer does' make it slightly denser than necessary, but there is little true 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 complex routing mutation with eight parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential process, preconditions, alternatives, and iteration behavior. It leaves return/status handling mostly to the wait_s schema text and get_board_job, and does not explain ml_options, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 high at 88%, so most parameter meaning is already supplied by the schema. The description adds useful semantics for `rounds`, including its relationship to route_board's default pipeline and the acceptance rule applied to each round, though it adds little for the remaining parameters such as wait_s, reach_mm, class_vias, vias_in_pads, or ml_options.

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 opens with a specific action—closing open nets left by routing—and explains the rip-and-reroute approach. It explicitly contrasts with repair_board, which never moves blockers, so an agent can distinguish it from route_board and related siblings 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?

It states the exact triggering condition: use after route_board leaves a handful of nets open, noting route_board's default pipeline already runs three rounds. It also explains that this tool adds more rounds or follows a single route, and that repair_board is not the right alternative for moving blockers.

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