add_zone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Single undo step' (a useful behavioral detail) but does not address consequences like DRC, overlapping zones, or required board state. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value: the first sentence covers the main purpose and parameters, the second adds the undo behavior. No unnecessary information.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core functionality (add copper zone, polygon format, net optionality, undo step). However, it omits details like valid layer names, polygon closure requirements, and potential interactions (e.g., with existing zones). It meets minimum viability but leaves gaps for an agent without additional 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains polygon_mm as 'polygon of [x, y] mm points' and net as optional (e.g., GND). However, it lacks detail on the layer parameter (e.g., valid values, formats) and does not specify the exact structure of the polygon array (e.g., closed loop). The description adds value but is incomplete.

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 tool adds a copper zone on a layer defined by a polygon of points in mm, with an optional net assignment. The verb 'add' and resource 'copper zone' are specific, and the context differentiates it from sibling tools like add_via or route_trace.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or typical scenarios. The description implies usage for adding copper pours but lacks comparative context.

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