Add Board Outline

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it operates on the Edge.Cuts layer but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it appends to or replaces an existing outline. No contradiction with annotations, but the added context is minimal.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core action and supported shape types. It contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

This tool has moderate complexity with nested parameters and multiple shape variants. The description is minimally adequate given the schema's completeness, but it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., board must be open) and how it relates to sibling outline tools (clear_board_outline, replace_board_outline). The output schema exists but is not shown, so return values are not a concern.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all parameters with individual descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond listing the shape names, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Draw') and clearly identifies the resource ('PCB board outline' on the 'Edge.Cuts layer') and enumerates supported shapes (rectangle, rounded rectangle, circle, polygon). This distinguishes it from related tools like clear_board_outline and replace_board_outline.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether an existing outline is replaced, cleared, or whether the board must be open. The description merely states the action without any contextual or exclusionary cues.

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