pcb_add_segment

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the pure action of adding a segment. While the destructiveHint annotation is present, the description does not clarify what destructive behavior may occur (e.g., whether it overwrites existing segments). It neither contradicts the annotation nor enriches it with additional details.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, but the description provides only a minimal statement. It lacks usage context, parameter explanation, and clarification of the tool's role among many similar pcb_add_* tools. The output schema exists, but the description remains insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it does not mention any parameters. The schema titles like 'X1 Mm' and 'Y1 Mm' offer some self-evidence, but the description adds no clarification about how coordinates, layer, or width relate to the segment.

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 'Add a board graphic segment' clearly identifies a specific action (add) and resource (board graphic segment). The term 'graphic' helps distinguish it from electrical tracks (e.g., pcb_add_track), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is specific enough to convey the tool's primary function.

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 like pcb_add_track or pcb_set_board_outline. There is no mention of intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states the action without contextual direction.

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