Add Copper Pour

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

The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain what destructive effects might occur, such as potential removal of existing copper or the need to refill zones. The description simply states the action without disclosing side effects.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and provides a clarifying parenthetical. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 provides a clear basic purpose, and the schema and output schema fill in parameter and return details. However, it lacks usage context, such as when to use versus 'add_zone' or whether refilling is required, making it only minimally viable for a moderately complex PCB operation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (net, layer, outline, clearance), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('copper pour') and clarifies it as a ground/power plane. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'add_zone', which could be seen as overlapping, so it misses the top score.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'add_zone', nor does it indicate prerequisites, follow-up steps, or situations where this tool is appropriate.

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