route_from_pad_to_pad

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Create' with no mention of side effects, such as whether existing tracks are replaced, which layers are affected, or how width defaults are applied. This is a mutation tool with no transparency about its impact.

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, which is easy to parse, but it is under-specified. It lacks important details without being overly verbose, so it is adequate but not exemplary in structure.

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 has 6 parameters (4 required) and no parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how to identify pads, what the output schema contains, or alternative routing behaviors, leaving too much implicit for correct invocation.

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 explain any parameters. It mentions 'two pads' but does not map them to ref1/pad1/ref2/pad2, nor does it explain layer or width_mm semantics. The description provides no added meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb 'Create' and names the exact resource: a simple orthogonal route between two pads. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like route_differential_pair and sch_route_wire_between_pins by specifying 'pads' and 'orthogonal'.

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. The word 'simple' implies it is for basic orthogonal connections, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any mention of route_single_track or other routing tools.

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