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

Annotations establish this is a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: hidden fields, moved-to-fab-layer semantics, and the interaction with run_drc checks. It does not mention the async job behavior (wait_s / get_board_job follow-up), which is left to the schema.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by per-parameter clauses in semicolon-separated form. Dense but every clause carries parameter meaning; the closing DRC note is the only sentence that is more contextual than operational.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description covers the parameter effects and the DRC linkage well. Remaining gaps (async job follow-up, how to verify the result) are partly covered by the schema's wait_s description.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of five parameters, including defaults ('hide', 'keep') that are absent from the schema. It omits meaning for design_id and wait_s, but those carry their own schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Take clutter off the silkscreen') and enumerates exactly which fields are affected (values, references, texts), which cleanly separates it from siblings like tidy_copper or cleanup_board.

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?

Usage is only implied: the closing note that run_drc's silk_overlap/silk_over_copper warnings count what remains hints this is a post-DRC cleanup step, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative tool.

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