add_keepout_zone

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the zone's restriction capabilities and default layers, and notes that pcb_path is optional. However, it does not mention side effects such as direct file modification, whether the zone is appended to existing zones, or any validation/error behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact, scannable argument list. No filler or repetition; every line provides necessary information.

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?

While the description thoroughly covers parameter semantics, it lacks key contextual details for a mutating tool: no mention of file modification side effects, no guidance on when to use vs sibling zone tools, and no reference to expected return values (though the output schema exists). This is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 effectively compensates by explaining every parameter: corners as {x,y} dicts with min 3, layer defaults, each no_* boolean's meaning, and pcb_path optionality. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 description opens with 'Create a keep-out zone that restricts placement of specified items,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's function. This also distinguishes it from siblings like add_copper_zone, which serves a different purpose.

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 description implies usage through its purpose statement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it does not contrast with add_copper_zone or explain when a keep-out zone is preferable to other restrictions.

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