pcb_start_polygon_placement

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this launches a modal-ish interactive mode in Altium, that completion is user-driven, and that the return value is only a confirmation dictionary rather than the created polygon. It omits error/precondition behavior (no active PCB, nonexistent layer) and whether the call blocks until the user finishes.

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 two most decision-relevant facts (interactive, active PCB) in the first line, followed by the workflow and the structured Args/Returns blocks. Slightly verbose in the parenthetical interaction detail and the Returns note, but nothing is wasted enough to harm use.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the return payload in depth, and parameter coverage is complete for a two-optional-param tool. The remaining gap is operational: preconditions and failure modes for an interactive command that requires a human at the Altium UI.

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 it does: 'layer' is explained as the target copper layer with its default, and 'net_name' as the optional net to assign to the pour. What is missing is any hint about valid layer name format or what an empty net_name means (unassigned/no-net pour).

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 ('Start INTERACTIVE polygon pour placement on the active PCB') and immediately delimits scope by declaring it does NOT create a polygon programmatically from coordinates. That negative framing distinguishes it from the programmatic placement siblings (e.g. pcb_place_polygon_rect, pcb_modify_polygon) without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Explains the required interaction model in concrete terms — clicks define vertices, right-click or Escape completes — so the agent knows a human must drive the rest of the operation. The exclusion of programmatic creation implies when another tool is appropriate, but no sibling is named explicitly and there is no guidance on what to do if no PCB document is active.

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