fastmean_relayout

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the result is a *new* SCM, and values, waveforms and native analysis are preserved rather than mutated in place — key for an agent deciding whether the operation is safe. It still doesn't state what happens on unsupported input or whether an existing output is overwritten.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by input class, guarantees, and parameter notes in a sensible order. Slightly fragmented by line breaks and the placement example interrupts the parameter notes, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the preservation guarantee plus the named-port prerequisite cover most of what an agent needs. The clear remaining gap is the required `path` parameter's referent and overwrite behavior, which matters a lot for a write-producing tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: the `density` enum is glossed ('compact (default) or the previous standard spacing') and `placements` is given a concrete example syntax that the schema's untyped anyOf does not provide. Only `path` — the sole required parameter — is left undefined as to whether it is the source circuit or the output destination.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Rebuild a supported circuit as adjacent components with physical wires'), and the second narrows the input class ('old per-pin PORT layouts' → 'connected orthogonal drawing'). It is clear about what it produces (a new SCM), though it never names which sibling to use instead for the non-legacy case.

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?

Usage is implied by the input condition ('old per-pin PORT layouts') and one real prerequisite is stated ('Numeric node-voltage references require stable named ports before changing geometry'), which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing versus fastmean_create_circuit or fastmean_edit_properties, leaving routing to inference.

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