pcb_move_tracks_to_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the flattens-everything side effect, explains exactly which pads get new vias and which (through-hole) do not, and warns to use it deliberately. It omits preconditions (net must exist, active PCB document) and reversibility, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its consequence before the mechanics and args; no filler sentences. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds defaults/units, so it still earns its space.

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 mutating, no-annotation, 4-parameter tool this covers purpose, side effects, parameters, and returns; an output schema exists, so the Returns line is a bonus rather than a necessity. The remaining gap is precondition/error behavior and the set of legal layer names, which an agent may need before invoking.

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 carry all parameter meaning, and it documents all four parameters including units (mils) and defaults (via_size_mils 50, via_hole_mils 28). It also gives a concrete example value for target_layer ("BottomLayer"), which the bare schema does not. It stops short of listing valid layer names or net-name format.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource+scope: move all tracks of a named net onto one layer, adding vias as needed. The follow-up explains the exact mechanics (relayer tracks, drop a via at same-net SMD pads not on the target layer). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like pcb_place_tracks or pcb_cleanup_tracks, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 phrase 'This flattens a net's routing onto one layer, so use it deliberately' signals a caution/context but never states when to choose this over pcb_place_tracks or pcb_cleanup_tracks, nor any prerequisite such as an open board or a valid net. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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