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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent, adding the key behavioral constraint that a tie is only placed where it clears other nets' pads, tracks, vias, and the board edge, plus the asynchronous wait/get_board_job handoff. It does not spell out persistence or reversibility of the added tracks beyond the annotation hint.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and rationale, then the placement constraint, then the workflow ordering. Every sentence carries required information, though the first sentence is long and packs mechanism and motivation together.

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 mutating board-edit tool with no output schema, the description covers what it changes, the safety constraint on placement, the correct position in the workflow, and job-follow-up via get_board_job. Remaining gaps (e.g. how many ties are created, effect on existing routing) are minor.

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 100%, with defaults and bounds documented for all seven parameters, so the description need not restate them. It adds only indirect context (plane nets, the board's current track width) and no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 precise verb and resource: tying neighbouring same-net SMD pads of plane nets (GND, poured rails) on their own layer with short tracks, including the design rationale (one shared via instead of per-pad vias). This cleanly separates it from sibling tools such as prune_vias, polish_vias, bridge_islands, and couple_pairs.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: run before routing and then route with preserve_existing (the default), or run after routing/prune_vias and re-run prune_vias on those nets. The reader knows both the prerequisite state and the follow-up action without inference.

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