pcb_set_keepout_zone

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds only 'to the active board' as extra context. It does not disclose what happens to existing keepouts or any side effects beyond the annotation. Since the destructive hint is provided, a score of 3 reflects that the description adds modest contextual value without contradiction.

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 details. Every word is purposeful and conveys the essential function without bloat.

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 mutating tool with six parameters and a destructive hint, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits crucial context like coordinate reference, layer scope, the meaning of 'rules', and any return values. Although an output schema exists, the description alone leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 0% of parameters, and the tool description provides no parameter explanations. While names like x_mm, y_mm, w_mm, and h_mm are self-explanatory, the 'rules' parameter is ambiguous and could easily be misused without guidance. 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 clearly states it adds a rectangular PCB keepout/rule area to the active board, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcb_add_zone or pcb_add_rectangle. The verb 'add' and resource 'keepout / rule area' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clarifies that the operation applies to the active board, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as pcb_add_zone or pcb_add_rectangle. The phrase 'keepout / rule area' implies a distinct use case, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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