set_diff_pair_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: all distances are in millimetres regardless of document units, dry_run prevents writing, and expected_sha256 must be passed after preview. Yet it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing rules, irreversibility) or required permissions. It adds some context but falls short of full transparency.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the resource, the unit convention, and the critical dry-run workflow. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for an 11-parameter mutation tool. It covers the critical safety workflow and units but does not explain most parameter semantics, prerequisites, or the effect of applying the rules. The tool is contextually complex, and the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that all distances are in mm, which applies to width, differential_gap, tolerance, neck_width, and max_uncoupled_length, and explains dry_run and expected_sha256 semantics. However, it leaves key parameters like class_name, path, txid, layer, and the exact meaning of gap/tolerance unexplained. The added value is minimal for an 11-parameter tool.

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 phrase 'Net-class differential-pair preset' suggests configuring differential-pair rules for a net class, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like analyze_differential_pair, validate_differential_pair, or route_diff_pair. It is clear enough to infer the resource and action, but it relies on the tool name for the 'set' verb.

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 clearly explains the safe usage workflow: 'dry_run=true previews without writing' and 'Set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and pass its expected_sha256.' This gives explicit step-by-step guidance on how to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to use this tool over other differential-pair tools, so it misses exclusions.

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