create_pcb_stackup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (opens in draw.io, shows layers with colors), mentions available materials and copper weights, and notes the auto_open parameter to control opening behavior. It does not mention potential side effects or cleanup, but it is fairly transparent about the tool's 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 well-structured with clear sections for templates, layer types, materials, and copper weights. It is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: output type, templates, layer types, materials, and control over opening. It could mention error handling or what happens if custom template is used without layers, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, and the description adds significant context beyond the schema. It explains the meaning of templates, layer types and their colors, available materials, and copper weights. This helps the agent understand parameter values and their implications, providing value beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 generates a PCB stackup cross-section diagram and opens it in draw.io. It specifies the verb 'generates', the resource 'PCB stackup diagram', and the action 'opens in draw.io'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other diagram types or export/read operations.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (to generate a PCB stackup diagram) and explains available templates (4layer, 6layer, custom) with brief explanations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives among siblings, though the siblings are different diagram types, so the comparison is implicit.

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