Set PCB Stack Layers

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that F.Cu and B.Cu are preserved, but omits side effects on inner layers/routing, reversibility, or prerequisites. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence with a reference, no wasted words, and is front-loaded with the core action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks information about effects on existing routing, whether inner layers are added/removed destructively, and any preconditions. The external instruction link is a weak substitute.

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 documents path but not copper_layer_count, giving 50% coverage. The description adds the preservation context but doesn't explain parameter semantics further; the parameter name is self-explanatory. Baseline is near 3 for moderate coverage.

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 ('Set') and resource ('PCB copper layer count'), with an additional constraint ('preserving F.Cu and B.Cu') that clearly differentiates this stack-up tool from the routing/layout siblings.

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 implies its use for changing layer count but provides no explicit context about when to choose this tool over siblings or any exclusions. The reference to instructions is helpful but not in-line guidance.

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