Add Gnd Stitching Vias

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (which already mark it destructive) by explaining the collision-checking details, the PTH full-stackup penetration rationale, and the dryRun preview capability. It adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, compact and dense with value. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds strategy and safety details without any 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 tool is complex (11 params, three strategies, collision checking), but the description covers the critical behavioral risks, strategy selection, and dryRun option. With a full input schema and an output schema present, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, mainly mentioning strategy names and dryRun, which are also in 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?

The description opens with 'Drop GND stitching vias across the board', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from single-via tools like add_via by describing multi-via stitching and strategies. The collision-checking emphasis reinforces its unique role.

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 gives clear context about when to use it (stitching vias) and describes three combinable strategies and a dryRun mode, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_via or state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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