pcb_add_circle

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description indicates a mutating operation ('Add'), but it provides no additional behavioral context such as coordinate system, units, or what existing geometry might be affected. It does not contradict the annotation, but adds negligible transparency beyond what is already structured.

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 single short sentence without filler, which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It earns its place but does not carry enough information to be considered well-structured for a tool with multiple parameters and a destructive hint.

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?

With 5 parameters, a destructive annotation, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits guidance on coordinate format, layer semantics, and the effect on existing board content, making the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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%, and the description gives no parameter-level detail. Although parameter names like cx_mm, cy_mm, radius_mm, width_mm, and layer are suggestive, the description does not explain units, defaults, or how layer interacts with the graphic, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'board graphic circle', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_add_rectangle and pcb_add_text. However, it doesn't clarify what 'graphic' means in terms of layer or usage, so it stops short of full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_add_rectangle, pcb_add_segment, or pcb_add_track. It does not state typical use cases for board graphic circles or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer intent from the tool name alone.

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