Set Board Size

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether existing board content is clipped or how the origin is affected), but it does not contradict 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 direct sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 simple and fully described by the schema and annotations. The description covers the core purpose, and an output schema is present so return values need not be explained. Minor gap: no mention of effects on existing board geometry or origin, but this is not critical for a setter of this simplicity.

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%: width, height, and unit all have descriptions, and unit has an enum. The description merely reiterates these parameters without adding additional semantics like valid ranges or unit conversion behavior.

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 the specific verb 'Set' with a clear resource ('PCB board dimensions') and explicitly names width, height, and unit. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_board_origin and set_active_layer by focusing on board size.

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 clearly states what the tool does, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_board_origin, add_board_outline). Usage context is implied by the name and description rather than spelled out.

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