pcb_place_polygon_rect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious pour_over semantics (covering vs. flowing around same-net objects) and that an empty net means a no-net fill, but says nothing about prerequisites (an open/active PCB document), whether the resulting pour must be repoured, or mutating side effects.

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 action, then a two-sentence usage note, then an Args block that earns its place. The only waste is the closing 'Dictionary confirming the polygon placement', which is redundant because an output schema already exists.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, units, and the one tricky flag, and it needn't explain return values thanks to the output schema. Missing prerequisites and the interaction with repour/DRC keep it short of complete.

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 entirely, and it does: it documents all seven parameters including units (mils) for x1/y1/x2/y2, corner semantics (first vs. opposite), default layer 'TopLayer', pour_over default True, and the unusual empty-net case.

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?

Opening line gives a specific verb+resource+shape: 'Drop a copper polygon pour on a rectangular area.' That does distinguish it from pcb_start_polygon_placement (interactive/arbitrary shape) and pcb_place_region/fill, but it never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

It states the intended use ('ground plane or power plane', pass board corners, layer, net typically 'GND') and gives a conditional rule for pour_over, which is real guidance. It offers no explicit when-not-use case and no named alternative for non-rectangular pours or repouring (pcb_repour_polygons, pcb_start_polygon_placement).

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