Modify Trace

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list, such as that it modifies an existing trace, but does not disclose failure conditions or irreversible effects. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches 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 a single sentence of eight words, concise and front-loaded with the core action and object. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant detail.

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 simple mutation tool with fully described parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is adequate. It covers the core function and aligns with the safety profile, though it omits contextual details like when to use it or potential side effects, which are partly covered by the annotations.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (traceUuid, width, layer, net). The description's mention of 'change width, layer, or net' simply restates the parameter names without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool modifies an existing trace and lists the specific properties (width, layer, net) that can be changed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_trace and route_trace by focusing on modification of existing traces rather than creation or deletion.

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. The description does not mention that it is for editing existing trace properties or exclude scenarios like creating or deleting traces, nor does it reference any sibling tools.

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