manage_zone

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

Even though annotations already indicate destructiveHint, the description adds deeper behavioral context: it warns that the board is modified, notes that deletion removes copper fill, mentions undo behavior (Ctrl+Z per action), and explains the dry_run option. These details go well beyond the annotation flags and fully inform the user of consequences.

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 description is tightly structured: opening overview, per-action detail, prerequisites, undo, dry run, and a final warning. Every sentence conveys necessary information without fluff, and the front-loaded verb makes the purpose immediately clear. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: actions, parameter requirements, performance note for refill, undo behavior, dry-run preview, and explicit destruction warning. It also integrates the dependency on list_zones for IDs. With an output schema present, the lack of return-value detail is acceptable, making this complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters by action (e.g., 'net and layer' for create, 'zone_id' from list_zones for delete), and clarifies the closed-polygon requirement. While much of this mirrors the schema, the action-oriented organization helps the agent quickly map parameters to usage.

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 three-part verb phrase ('Creates, refills, or deletes a copper zone on the board'), clearly identifying the resource and distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_zones. It goes further by enumerating each action with precise behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action and mentions required prerequisites (e.g., 'at least 3 outline points forming a closed polygon'). It also points to the sibling tool 'list_zones' for obtaining IDs, and recommends using 'dry_run=true' to preview actions, effectively contrasting safe and destructive usage.

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