kicad.set_design_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies mutation, the description fails to disclose whether changes apply immediately to existing traces, if the operation is reversible, what the output schema contains, or whether changes persist to disk without calling `save_project`.

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?

Extremely efficient single-sentence structure with prerequisite front-loaded in brackets. Every token earns its place—no filler words while conveying action, scope, and affected parameters.

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?

Inadequate for a PCB design tool where units are critical (0.2 could be mm or inches). While the existence of an output schema excuses the description from detailing return values, the description misses essential domain distinctions (global vs net-class rules) and persistence behavior. The prerequisite hint alone is insufficient for safe mutation.

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% (only titles provided). The description compensates by mapping the three parameters to their functions (trace width, clearance, drill size) and implying these are minimum values. However, it omits critical domain context: expected units (mm vs inches), physical definitions (e.g., clearance between what objects), and valid value ranges.

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 verb (Set) and resource (global design rules), listing the three specific rule categories controlled. The term 'global' effectively distinguishes this from sibling `create_net_class`, which handles net-specific rules. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly clarify this is for PCB layout versus schematic.

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 bracketed prefix '[Requires open project]' provides a clear prerequisite for invocation. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this over `create_net_class` for specific nets, and doesn't mention whether a project must be saved first or if this triggers DRC automatically.

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