pcb_add_zone

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is potentially destructive. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention what might be destroyed, whether existing zones are overwritten, or any side effects. The 'arbitrary polygon outline' phrase gives minimal shape context but not meaningful behavioral 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No wasted words or irrelevant details, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no visible output schema), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the return value, clarify the confusion with pcb_add_copper_zone, or provide enough context for correct invocation. The tool is not simple enough for this level of brevity.

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 compensate. It only hints that corners define a polygon, but does not explain the required format, the meaning of net_name, layer, or any of the other 7 parameters. With 10 parameters and no descriptions, the agent has no semantic guidance, making this a critical gap.

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 resource (copper zone) with a specific scope (arbitrary polygon outline on one copper layer). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool pcb_add_copper_zone, which appears to have the same purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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_copper_zone or pcb_set_keepout_zone. There is no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, so the agent is left without direction.

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