pcb_add_microvia

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, covering the mutation risk. The description adds the layer adjacency constraint, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose other traits like validation behavior or state effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 eight-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and the core constraint. It contains no filler or redundant content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Even with output schema and annotations providing some context, the tool has 7 undocumented parameters and no usage or error guidance. The one-sentence description is insufficient to fully guide an agent on valid layer names, coordinate conventions, or when to prefer this over adjacent sibling tools.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate but barely does. It only clarifies that from_layer and to_layer should be adjacent copper layers, leaving coordinates, defaults, net_name, and units undocumented except for implicit name hints.

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' with a specific resource 'microvia' and a key constraint 'between adjacent copper layers'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_add_via and pcb_add_blind_via by emphasizing the adjacency requirement.

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 'between adjacent copper layers' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as using pcb_add_blind_via for non-adjacent layers, so it stops short of full guidance.

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