pcb_create_track

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the coordinate model (canvas-relative mil, +Y upward), which is helpful, but it does not disclose what happens on failure, whether re-issuing creates duplicates, or the auto document-switch side effect beyond what the schema states.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then layers on coordinate conventions and cross-references. Every sentence carries information, though the coordinate-system detail is slightly dense for a single sentence.

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?

Covers purpose, coordinate semantics, and where to look for related operations, which is sufficient for a create tool with no output schema. Gaps are minor: no statement of the success response or the interaction between net/layer values and validation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully enriches the parameters by defining the coordinate units (mil = 0.001 inch), the axis orientation (+X right, +Y up), and that widths/diameters share the same unit — none of which is stated in the schema where coordinates are only labelled 'Start X coordinate'.

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 single track segment (line) between two points' — on a given layer and net. The word 'single' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling pcb_create_polyline_track, but that sibling is never named, so the distinction relies on inference.

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 how-to context (read the origin offset with pcb_canvas_origin, convert coordinates with pcb_convert_coordinates), which is real usage guidance for the coordinate model. However, it never states when to use this versus pcb_create_polyline_track, and gives no preconditions or exclusions.

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