pcb_add_copper_zone

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations; it only discloses that it is an alias for pcb_add_zone(), but does not describe actual behavior, side effects, or requirements. The destructiveHint annotation covers the safety profile, but the description does not enrich it.

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, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It does not earn its place because it adds little beyond what the tool name already suggests.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions) and sparse annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no explanation of the operation, parameters, or behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description contains no parameter information at all. With a schema coverage of 0% and 10 parameters, the description fails entirely to compensate for undocumented parameters, leaving all parameter semantics unexplained.

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 states 'Backward-compatible alias for pcb_add_zone()', which indirectly identifies this tool as a zone-adding function, but it does not explicitly describe what the tool does. It relies heavily on the reader knowing pcb_add_zone(), making the purpose vague and not self-contained.

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 phrase 'backward-compatible' hints that this tool exists for legacy use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus pcb_add_zone() or other alternatives. No exclusions or contextual criteria are provided.

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