pcb_add_via

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the destructiveHint annotation already indicates. It does not explain what board modifications occur, whether existing copper is affected, or how the via connects layers. Given the annotation already flags destructiveness, the description provides minimal additional value.

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 extremely concise ('Add a via.'), but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and multiple related via-adding tools. The brevity sacrifices necessary clarity, making it not appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, destructive effect, sibling via tools), the one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not explain how this via addition differs from blind or microvia alternatives, nor the practical implications of the destructive operation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it provides none. The parameter names (e.g., x_mm, drill_mm, via_type) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify units, coordinate system, or the role of via_type, leaving the agent to guess.

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 via' clearly states the verb and object, specifying that this tool creates a via on the PCB. However, it does not distinguish between via types (e.g., through, blind, micro), which is a gap given sibling tools like pcb_add_blind_via and pcb_add_microvia.

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. It does not mention preferences, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that adding a via is the only use case without clarifying differences between standard, blind, or micro vias.

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