pcb_repour_polygons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains that polygons are rebuilt through the API, that shelved polygons are skipped, and that repoured is true only when at least one rebuild succeeded and none failed. It stops short of stating prerequisites (active board, typical runtime, whether a failed rebuild leaves partial state).

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, then behavior, then result semantics, with zero filler in the prose. The explicit 'Returns' block is partly redundant because an output schema already exists, which costs a bit of efficiency.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers action, side effects, skip rules, and success-flag semantics, which is enough to invoke it correctly. A note on preconditions (a board must be open and pours present) would close the remaining 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's discussion of pour order and shelved polygons usefully clarifies scope even though there is nothing to parameterize.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Repour every poured polygon on the open PCB") with scope ("in pour order"), so an agent knows exactly what operation runs. It does not name or contrast with close siblings such as pcb_get_polygons or pcb_modify_polygon, leaving that distinction implicit.

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 clause "so a changed clearance or board-edge rule takes effect" implies the use case (re-apply pours after rule changes), but it never states this as a condition or says when not to use it versus pcb_modify_polygon or pcb_get_polygons. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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