set_trace_width

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that distances are in millimetres regardless of document units, that dry_run previews without writing, and that the final write requires expected_sha256. This is valuable safety-related behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state that the operation mutates the design or describe side effects.

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 concise at three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds useful information. The inclusion of 'Input schema: diptrace://schemas/tool-inputs' is somewhat redundant with the inline schema but does not significantly detract from clarity.

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 tool with 7 parameters and a nested selector object, the description covers the critical safety workflow and units but lacks details about selector semantics and segment_indices. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description still leaves gaps in understanding how to construct the selector and how segment_indices interact with the selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining width units (millimetres), dry_run behavior, and expected_sha256 purpose. However, it does not explain the selector object, segment_indices, path, or txid parameters, which are critical for correct invocation. The schema alone provides minimal semantic context.

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 tool sets selected trace segment widths, using a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('trace segment widths'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_trace or delete_trace. However, the phrase 'with exported DRC minimum checks' is slightly ambiguous, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides a clear usage workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. It implies this tool is for modifying trace widths, but it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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