pcb_add_track

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

The description merely says 'Add a single track segment' and adds no behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not disclose how the segment interacts with existing copper, whether design rules are checked, or how net/width defaults are applied, so it provides no extra transparency.

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 redundant words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is arguably too sparse for a 7-parameter tool, though it does serve as an efficient purpose statement.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no parameter explanations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain coordinate interpretation, units, layer defaults, net handling, or the effect of the operation, even though an output schema exists to describe return values.

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 parameters such as coordinates, layer, width, or net. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving all semantic weight on the raw schema field names.

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 resource 'single track segment,' communicating the core operation and distinguishing it from bulk operations like pcb_add_tracks_bulk. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings such as pcb_add_segment or route_single_track, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_add_tracks_bulk, pcb_add_segment, or route_single_track. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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