Set Design Rules

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

The annotations already signal a destructive write operation (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description's 'Configure' verb is consistent with that, so no contradiction exists. However, it does not disclose whether unspecified parameters are left unchanged or reset, whether an open board is required, or whether existing routing is affected—key behavioral context for a mutating tool with 14 optional parameters.

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 12-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists specifics after a colon. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 14 optional parameters, the description fails to clarify whether calling it with no arguments is a no-op, resets to defaults, or errors, and does not address replace-versus-merge semantics. The presence of an output schema and full parameter coverage mitigates the need to document return values, but the all-optional parameter ambiguity remains a notable gap.

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 each of the 14 parameters, warranting the baseline of 3. The description adds a useful high-level grouping (clearance, track width, vias, courtyards) that maps to the schema parameters but provides no additional syntax, units, or relationship details.

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 ('Configure') with a clear resource ('PCB design rules') and enumerates the rule categories (clearance, track width, via dimensions, courtyard requirements). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_design_rules tool by its set-oriented verb, though it does not explicitly contrast with other set tools like set_layer_constraints.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_design_rules, set_layer_constraints, or run_drc. No exclusions, prerequisites, or workflow context (e.g., set rules before routing/DRC) are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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