set_pour_thermals

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds interaction behavior (pours are selected on their outline with other copper layers hidden, then the view is restored), but it never says whether existing thermal widths are overwritten or what is lost, which is the key detail for a destructive tool.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded before the procedural note. The parenthetical scope qualifier is efficient. The procedural sentence is arguably tangential to invocation but is short enough to earn its place.

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 3-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies scope, target selection semantics, and the interaction side effect. Remaining gaps are minor: no statement of overwrite behavior on existing thermal settings and no explicit units for width_mm.

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 carry the load: it explains that the target is a net's pours and that 'layer' restricts to one layer while omitting it affects all pours, which maps directly onto the 'net' and 'layer' parameters. 'width_mm' is only indirectly covered via 'spoke width' with no explicit unit or range statement.

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 (set) plus resource (thermal-relief spoke width) and scopes it precisely to a net's existing pours, with the all-pours vs single-layer distinction. It does not reference any sibling (e.g. add_pour or list_pours), so differentiation is left to the reader, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Existing pours' implies a precondition (pours must already exist, so add_pour is the prerequisite rather than an alternative), but this is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative for achieving similar copper-thermal results.

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