pcb_add_rectangle

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

Annotation Contradiction: The description says 'Add' (a creation/insertion operation) while annotations declare destructiveHint=true, implying potential data loss or irreversible changes. The description does not explain why this could be destructive, and the contradiction makes the safety profile confusing. Even without the contradiction, the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though it omits essential details. Conciseness should reward brevity, but the lack of supporting information makes it borderline; a 4 feels right given the efficient structure.

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 a tool with six parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain layer defaults, coordinate interpretation, width meaning, or any side effects. The agent would have no idea how to use the tool correctly or what to expect.

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 offers no explanation of parameters. The parameter names (x1_mm, y1_mm, etc.) are somewhat self-explanatory but the description neither clarifies coordinate meaning, layer semantics, width usage, nor any constraints. The burden falls entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for a tool with six parameters.

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 'Add' and the specific resource 'board graphic rectangle', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_add_circle, pcb_add_track, and pcb_add_text. The primary action and target are unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention layer context, design rules, or exclusions. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent without placement guidance.

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