pcb_create_polyline_track

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds coordinate-frame and unit context but says nothing about side effects, whether existing geometry is replaced, or how net/layer assignment behaves on execution.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly scoped unit/coordinate clarification and two tool cross-references. Every sentence carries information; only the coordinate-system detail is slightly verbose but still 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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the unit convention, coordinate frame, and pointers to origin/conversion helpers that an agent needs to build correct point arrays. It omits the semantics of net/layer assignment, but the schema documents those adequately.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: coordinates and widths are in mil (1 mil = 0.001 inch), relative to the canvas origin with +X rightward and +Y upward. This is genuinely additive for the polygon and lineWidth parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a multi-segment polyline track defined by a series of points.' The 'multi-segment polyline' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling pcb_create_track, but it does not name that alternative 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?

Provides useful context (coordinate system, units) and cross-references pcb_canvas_origin and pcb_convert_coordinates for coordinate handling. However, it never states when to choose this over pcb_create_track or other creation tools, leaving the primary routing decision to inference.

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