pcb_set_track_width

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden. It does disclose the important behavioral trait that the operation is bulk ('every routed track segment'), which is more than the name conveys, but it omits mutability/reversibility (undo), whether locked tracks are affected, and what happens if the net has no tracks or does not exist.

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, followed by a scope clarification, then Args/Returns in a predictable structure. Sentence two partially restates sentence one, and the Returns block duplicates the existing output schema, but neither is costly.

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 two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, both arguments, and return shape. What remains missing is the risk/safety layer that unstructured annotations would normally provide — undo behavior, failure modes, and interaction with design rules.

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 and largely does: net_name is explained with an example ('VCC') and width_mils is given with units and example values (10, 20, 50). It stops short of stating valid ranges or manufacturing minimums.

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?

Specific verb+resource with explicit scope: 'Modify track width for all tracks on a specific net', reinforced by 'every routed track segment assigned to the given net'. An agent immediately knows what is changed. It does not, however, contrast itself with adjacent siblings such as pcb_place_tracks, pcb_trim_extend_track, or audit_find_inconsistent_track_widths.

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 'Useful for adjusting power or signal trace widths' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not, no preconditions (board open, net routed), and no pointer to alternatives like pcb_calc_trace_width_for_current for deciding the value. Usage guidance is implied only.

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