update_track_width

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

The description states only that it updates width, implying mutation, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, permissions needed, range constraints, or whether it triggers DRC updates. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb. However, it is overly terse and sacrifices useful detail, but for conciseness itself, it is effective.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain track_id, what the return value is, possible errors, or any side effects. A simple update tool still requires more context for reliable use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what track_id refers to or the unit and valid range for width_mm. No additional meaning is provided beyond the parameter names and types.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('track segment') and attribute ('width'). It is distinct from sibling tools like update_shape_width and update_track_net, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., track existence), conditions under which it should be avoided, or relationship to other tools like lock_track.

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