add_trace

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not state whether an open design is required, what happens on layer/geometry conflicts, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the syntax details trailing. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 4-required-parameter write tool with no output schema, the core geometry and layer inputs are covered. Missing context on prerequisites (open design), return behavior, and how it relates to the other routing siblings leaves it merely adequate.

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. It does document the two non-obvious parameters well: points_mm as [[x, y], ...] in mm and layer as 'top'/'bottom'/'inner1'.. or a number. It adds nothing for net or width_mm, which are partly self-describing by name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Route a trace through the given points'. The agent understands the action clearly. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like route_trace, route_net, or route_pair, which are also present in the tool list.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. With siblings such as route_trace and route_pair available, the description leaves the agent to infer which routing tool applies in which situation.

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