create_pcb_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the content is synthetic, has correct XML structure but is NOT verified by DipTrace open/save, and that distances are always in millimetres regardless of the document's Units attribute. This is substantial transparency, though it could further clarify behavior when overwrite=false or when the target already exists without a SHA.

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 two short paragraphs with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose; the second paragraph delivers critical caveats and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers key caveats: synthetic nature, compatibility warning, alternative tool, SHA requirement, and unit behavior. It does not explain return values, but the output schema covers that. It could detail the pcb scaffold more, but overall it provides enough context for an AI agent to use the tool safely.

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 description coverage is low (17%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for units (all distances in mm) and expected_sha256 (required for replacing an existing target). However, it does not explain the pcb scaffold structure or the format_version semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The reference to the input schema helps, but the added parameter-level guidance 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new DipTrace PCB XML document (outline, layers, stackup, rules)' and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_schematic_document (PCB vs schematic) and create_document_from_seed (synthetic vs seed-based). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly names an alternative: 'Use create_document_from_seed with a real DipTrace export when DipTrace compatibility is required.' It also provides important usage context for overwriting: 'Replacing an existing target requires its current SHA.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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