Add a circular exclusion zone around mounting holes to prevent copper on top/bottom layers and vias, so pours and the autorouter avoid it.
Circular keepout (e.g. around a mounting hole): no copper on 'top' / 'bottom' and no 'vias' inside it. Pours and the autorouter respect it. Uses EAGLE restrict layers 41/42/43.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x_mm | Yes | ||
| y_mm | Yes | ||
| layers | No | ||
| radius_mm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the real behavioral burden. It does so well by stating the downstream effects ('Pours and the autorouter respect it') and the underlying representation ('EAGLE restrict layers 41/42/43'). It does not say whether the design must be open or whether the change needs save_design to persist.
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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the semantic effect and the implementation detail. Every sentence contributes information.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly avoids return-value discussion and instead covers what the keepout does and which layers it maps to. Missing only minor operational context (open-design precondition, units, persistence), which for a simple additive geometry tool is a small gap.
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 all four parameters. It partly does: 'Circular' explains radius_mm, and the quoted 'top'/'bottom'/'vias' values clarify the layers array and its meaning. x_mm and y_mm are never addressed (presumably the circle center), so the compensation 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: it adds a circular keepout and defines what that means (no copper on 'top'/'bottom', no vias inside). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from (e.g. add_hole, add_pour, rip_up), so it stops short of the top mark.
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?
Usage context is implied by the parenthetical example 'e.g. around a mounting hole', which tells the agent a typical scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-something-else guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as add_hole or add_pour, so it remains implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.