add_pour

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the pour is filled immediately, it respects keepouts, rank controls cut-out priority, thermals come from design rules, and outline width centering affects effective inset.

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 paragraph is front-loaded with the core action and remains information-dense rather than repetitive. It is long for a single description but each clause adds technical meaning for a complex PCB tool.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers most behavior, defaults, and interactions with keepouts and design rules. Minor gaps remain around the layer parameter and points_mm format, but the overall context is strong.

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 carries the parameter burden. It explains net, rank, inset_mm, width_mm, points_mm, isolate_mm, and thermal_width_mm meanings well, but layer is only implied and not explicitly defined with its default or accepted values.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Add a copper pour (polygon) on a net.' It distinguishes the action from sibling tools like list_pours and set_pour_thermals by specifying creation and immediate fill, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: omit points to follow the board outline, use inset_mm for edge clearance, rank for overlap priority, and it respects keepouts. It does not explicitly name when to use this versus alternatives such as set_pour_thermals, so it stops short of the top score.

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