pcb_create_via

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create via' implies a mutating operation but does not state whether an open document is required, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects may occur on the board.

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 extremely terse and contains no waste, but it is under-specified for a five-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here comes at the cost of missing context that the schema and annotations cannot provide.

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?

This is a mutating PCB tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not mention board state requirements, how the via relates to existing nets or tracks, or what the result of a successful creation is, leaving important context absent.

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 100%, with each parameter documented in Chinese (coordinates in mil, net name, drill and outer diameters). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '创建过孔' clearly states a specific verb and resource: create a via. It is unambiguous about the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like pcb_delete_via or pcb_create_component.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as having a board open or a valid net. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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