cst_pcb_create_stackup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it generates brick geometry and positions layers vertically, but does not mention side effects like whether it requires an open project, if it overwrites existing stackups, or how it modifies the project tree. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value with no fluff: the first states the verb-resource, the second details outputs. Perfectly structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-layer stackup with materials) and the fact that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs (layers array, board dimensions) and outputs (thickness, positions). It could be more complete by mentioning that layers are created as 3D objects in the project tree, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that it generates brick geometry for each layer positioned vertically with correct materials and that it returns total thickness and layer positions. This adds value for an agent selecting parameters.

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 clearly states the tool creates a PCB layer stackup, generates brick geometry for each layer, and returns total thickness and layer positions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cst_pcb_create_ground_plane or cst_create_brick by specifying the unique function of layer stackup creation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as cst_pcb_import_gerber or cst_create_brick. It implies usage for stackup creation but lacks when-not or exclusionary language.

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