Set Layer Constraints

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether it overwrites existing constraints or if it triggers a DRC re-run.

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 conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the high schema coverage, presence of output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient for basic understanding. It could mention the effect on existing constraints, but for a simple setter tool this is not a major 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions and units for all five parameters. The description merely summarizes the parameter types without adding new semantics beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 ('Set') with a clear resource ('per-layer design rule constraints') and lists the specific properties (track width, clearance, via dimensions). This distinguishes the tool from global design rule setters like set_design_rules.

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 implies usage for per-layer constraint modifications but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as set_design_rules or get_design_rules. There is no guidance on when to use this over global rule setting.

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