pcb_apply_route

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

The description discloses that the tool applies a route, reads back IDs and connectivity, and then runs DRC, which aligns with destructiveHint and readOnly false. It does not mention reversibility or overwrite semantics, but the annotations already signal destructive behavior.

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 sentences with no filler; the main action and workflow are front-loaded. The phrase 'MODEL-supplied' is slightly opaque but does not hurt concision.

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?

It provides a workflow sketch (checks, apply, read back, DRC) and the no-autorouter boundary, but it omits output shape and sufficient detail about target, revision, and operationId. An agent could infer the basic call but would not fully understand all inputs or return values.

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 refers vaguely to 'revision checks' and a 'path,' but target, operationId, revision, and route are otherwise unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage and a complex nested route schema, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.

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 has a clear verb and resource ('Apply path') and explicitly says 'No autorouter,' which helps distinguish it from automatic routing tools. However, 'MODEL-supplied path' is somewhat cryptic and does not fully define the PCB object or outcome.

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?

It indicates using it after fresh geometry/revision checks and mentions DRC follow-up, but it does not explicitly say when to call this instead of pcb_check_route or eda_run_drc. 'No autorouter' gives a negative boundary but no positive selection criteria.

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