add_track

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds useful behavioral context: no DRC is run and the user should check with drc after saving. It also notes the width defaulting behavior, which is not visible in the schema.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and key parameters are front-loaded, and the DRC caveat is placed at the end where it is easy to remember. Every sentence earns 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?

The description covers the main parameters, units, default width, and the important DRC caveat. The output schema handles return-value expectations, and annotations cover the destructive nature. The only missing piece is the undocumented 'path' parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains points format and units, layer, net, and width default, but it does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. This is a meaningful gap in an otherwise helpful parameter explanation.

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 a specific action ('Draw track segments') on a specific resource (points, layer, net), and the mention of 'track segments' distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_via. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 gives clear context: it draws tracks and explicitly warns that no DRC is run, directing the agent to run drc after saving. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the usage context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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