pcb_add_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying call, valid TLayer values, restrictions on Top/Bottom, and that it returns a confirmation dictionary, but it omits side effects such as insertion position in the stack, permission requirements, or impact on design rules.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and organized with Args/Returns sections. The reference to IPCB_LayerStack.InsertLayer is slightly implementation-specific, but overall the text is efficient and every section adds some value.

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 that it is a one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description covers the essential calling information: valid layer names, disallowed layers, and confirmation return value. It could be more complete about insertion position or side effects, but the key constraints for correct invocation are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does so thoroughly by naming the parameter, giving examples, and enumerating the valid layer ranges (MidLayer1..MidLayer30 and InternalPlane1..InternalPlane16) while excluding Top/Bottom.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: inserting a copper layer into the PCB layer stack. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from pcb_remove_layer and pcb_modify_layer, though it does not explicitly name those sibling alternatives.

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 useful context about valid layer names and the restriction that Top/Bottom cannot be added. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_modify_layer or pcb_get_layer_stackup, leaving usage guidance largely implied.

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