Prepare PCB track or via mutation

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: this is a non-mutating staging step that requires an exact confirmation phrase, which reconciles with readOnlyHint=true despite the word 'destructively'. It does not cover what happens on target fingerprint mismatch, whether previews expire, or permission requirements, but it adds real context the structured hints do not carry.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the operation scope front-loaded and the non-mutation guarantee placed second as the critical safety qualifier. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

For an 18-parameter, nested-target, destructive-capable tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential things an agent cannot get from the schema: that this stages rather than executes and that confirmation is required. It stops short of explaining the confirmation handoff or what the preview returns, which would fully close the loop.

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 94%, so per-property meaning (coordinates, viaId/trackId, lineWidth, properties, target fingerprint) is already handled by the schema. The description adds only the entity/action permutation framing ('tracks and vias' for create/modify/delete) and no format or constraint detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Prepares creating, modifying, or destructively deleting copper tracks and vias') plus the target surface ('on the active PCB canvas'), so it is immediately distinguishable from read-only siblings like easyeda_get_pcb_tracks or easyeda_get_pcb_vias. An agent knows this is a mutation-preparation tool scoped to tracks and vias, not routing, layout, or net-constraint work.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Prepares ... with safety preview and exact confirmation phrase' and 'Does not modify the PCB until confirmed', which signals a two-phase write flow. However, the description never names the follow-up tool (easyeda_confirmed_action / easyeda_get_mutation_result) or states when to prefer this over the read-side siblings or easyeda_prepare_pcb_routing. The agent must infer the confirmation handoff from tool names alone.

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