Pour PCB Layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose that this modifies the .kicad_pcb file, whether it requires existing nets, or what 'managed' means regarding zone behavior. The mention of 'full-board' implies it covers the entire board, but potential side effects are not described.

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 sentence plus a reference to instructions. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant information. The reference to the instructions file is a useful pointer for additional details.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about return values, synchronous behavior, prerequisites (e.g., net must exist), and the effects of the parameters. The external instructions file is referenced but not included, so the AI agent has no direct access to that 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 only 11% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it only mentions copper zones and stitching vias in general terms. It does not clarify the meaning of edge_margin_mm, stitch_grid_mm, max_vias, or the relationship between via_drill_mm and via_diameter_mm.

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 creates managed full-board copper zones and optional stitching vias, using a specific verb ('create') and resource ('copper zones'). This distinguishes it from sibling PCB tools like auto_route_pcb and set_pcb_stack_layers.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the action of creating copper zones and stitching vias implies its use for power/ground pours. It references an instructions file, which could provide more guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit when/when-not conditions.

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