pcb_add_teardrops

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags mutation. The description adds that it creates copper helper zones at junctions but does not disclose details such as whether existing tracks are modified, whether zones are added as separate objects, or whether the operation is reversible. It adds minimal 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 clear sentence with no redundancy or filler; it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 four optional parameters and no explanatory guidance on their effects, the one-sentence description is insufficient for correct invocation. The output schema may document return values, but the description does not cover parameter usage, selection criteria, or potential consequences of the destructive operation.

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 does not mention any of the four parameters (max_count, net_classes, width_ratio, length_ratio). The parameter names are suggestive but not explained, forcing the agent to guess their meaning. The description 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 the specific verb 'create' with a clear resource ('small copper helper zones') and a precise context ('at simple pad-to-track junctions'), clearly identifying the tool's function and distinguishing it from other pcb_add_* tools.

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 implies use for simple pad-to-track junctions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_add_copper_zone, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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