set_trace_width

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

Annotations provide minimal guidance (all hints false), so the description carries the burden. It states the action (change width) and filters but does not disclose what happens when no traces match, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on the board. It only mentions optional pcb_path. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 a compact docstring with a clear opening sentence and a structured Args list. Every line provides necessary information without fluff, and the required filter constraint is highlighted. This is well organized and appropriately concise.

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?

The description covers the core operation, prerequisites, and all parameter meanings, and the output schema likely handles return values. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as when no filters match or multiple traces are affected, and lacks any note about the operation's scope within the PCB context. Given the number of parameters and mutation nature, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 schema descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must fully document them. It does, explaining width units (mm), filter semantics for net_name, layer, and bounding box coordinates, and pcb_path optional behavior. Each parameter receives a concise yet meaningful explanation, making this a strong compensation.

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 clearly states the tool changes the width of existing traces, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_trace, remove_traces, and list_pcb_traces by focusing on width modification, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 notes that at least one filter is required, providing a key usage constraint. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or list when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as using add_trace for new traces or remove_traces for deletion. This is a moderate gap.

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