add_testpoints

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

Discloses that distances are in millimetres regardless of document units, that the operation is atomic, and that dry_run previews without writing. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't describe failure modes or what the preview returns.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then key safety details. Each sentence is essential and non-redundant, making it concise and well-structured.

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 write operation with nested parameters and a dry-run/commit pattern, the description covers the essential workflow and safety requirements. It doesn't detail the preview output format or transaction integration, but the output schema and sibling transaction tools provide surrounding 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?

The description explicitly explains the critical parameters: dry_run's behavior and expected_sha256's role as a safety check. It also clarifies units for all distance parameters. Path and txid are left implicit, but the nested operation schema already documents most distance parameters.

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?

Description states 'Add explicit standalone-pad testpoints and connect them to existing nets atomically' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like move_testpoints or remove_testpoints. It also clarifies the atomic nature, which is a key differentiator.

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?

Provides a clear workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false with expected_sha256 after inspection. This gives clear context for safe usage, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like find_testpoint_candidates for discovering locations.

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