ground_vias

Does 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). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: vias are never placed via-in-pad, placement is planned one pad at a time to avoid via collisions, and all writes are grouped into a single undo step. That undo-grouping detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core action and following with constraints and the skip semantics. Every sentence carries information; only minor tightening is possible.

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 board-mutating tool with no output schema and five undocumented parameters, the description covers the concept, safety-relevant behavior, and one parameter well but omits meaning for dry_run and the two dimension parameters. An agent could invoke it correctly at a high level but would be guessing on the numeric and dry-run arguments.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only `skip` (with a concrete 'U1.4' example) and confirms the `net` default of GND; `dry_run`, `max_dist_mm`, and `trace_width_mm` are left completely undefined in both schema and description, leaving three of five parameters opaque.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: adding a via next to each SMD pad on a plane net, with the connection mechanism explained (short trace to nearest clear via spot). It is clearly distinguishable from generic add_via, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like stitch_vias or fanout_pad, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 notes that through-hole pads are skipped and that skip excludes specific pads, which are useful edge conditions, but it never states when to choose this tool over stitch_vias, fanout_pad, or clean_vias. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing is given despite many overlapping siblings.

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