calculate_copper_thieving_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the specific acceptance threshold (IPC-TM-650 2.4.22 <= 0.75%) and that the generated patterns are non-functional dummy copper per IPC-2221B 10.1.1 — useful for an agent judging what a 'risk' result means. It stops short of noting whether generation is purely a computed report or writes artifacts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence whose main verb and resource come first, with standards citations embedded rather than filler. It is somewhat dense and stacks three distinct outputs into one clause, which costs a little readability, but nothing 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 no output schema, the description should help an agent anticipate the return value, and it does name the three outputs conceptually (balance, warpage risk, pattern geometry). However it never indicates the form of those outputs (numeric balance, pass/fail verdict, coordinate lists) or units, leaving a gap for a compound computational tool with six inputs.

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% and every parameter (board dimensions, pitch, keepout margin, optional top/bottom copper areas) is documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (Calculate) with a precise resource (layer copper density balance between top/bottom layers) and adds two concrete sub-capabilities: reflow warpage risk assessment against an IPC-TM-650 threshold, and generation of non-functional thieving dot/grid patterns. It is unmistakable against the many other calculate_* siblings (clearance, stackup impedance, trace current) because it names copper balance and thieving explicitly.

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 context of use is implied by the domain (copper balance for warpage mitigation during PCB design), but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus adjacent ones such as calculate_pcb_panel_rails, or any prerequisite (e.g., must be run after routing is complete or knowing copper areas). Adequate but leaves the selection decision to inference.

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