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

Annotations only declare that this is not read-only and not destructive; the description goes further by stating what actually changes — value/part-number fields hidden, references moved to the fab layer or hidden, footprint texts moved off the silkscreen. That is the mutation context an agent needs. It says nothing about reversibility or permissions, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is a compact parameter walkthrough with no filler. The clipped phrasing ("values "hide" (default) hides...") is dense to the point of being slightly telegraphic, but every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description covers the enum options and references async job follow-up via run_drc results, but never states what the tool returns when executed or how to interpret a "running" status here. Adequate, with a visible gap around outcome reporting.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the three enum parameters and their defaults (values="hide", references="keep", texts="fab"). It omits that values also accepts "show", and leaves wait_s entirely to the schema's own description.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb and resource ("Take clutter off the silkscreen") and the parameter walkthrough makes it clear this manipulates value/reference/text fields. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the nearest siblings such as stamp_silkscreen or tidy_copper, so an agent must infer the split.

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 supplies defaults for each option and points at run_drc's silk_overlap/silk_over_copper warnings as the way to check what remains, which implies a clean-then-verify workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use versus stamp_silkscreen or tidy_copper, and no statement of prerequisites or when not to run it.

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