refill_zones

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat the safety profile. It adds useful context about board-wide scope and the typical workflow trigger, but it does not disclose what the refill destroys or replaces, such as existing copper pours.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action appears first, and the usage trigger is neatly contained in a parenthetical. Every word 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 presence of an output schema and annotations covers safety and return values, and the description gives good trigger context. However, the path parameter remains unexplained, which is a notable gap for an agent that needs to know whether to pass a value or rely on the 'open board' default.

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 0% and the description never explains the 'path' parameter. The phrase 'open board' weakly implies that path may be unnecessary, but an agent still has no real guidance on what path refers to or when to supply it. With such low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Refill') and a clear resource ('all copper zones in the open board'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_track, ripup_net, or move_component. It also states the scope ('all') rather than leaving it ambiguous.

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 parenthetical 'needed after moving parts or routing near zones' gives explicit trigger conditions for when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to call it.

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