add_board_outline_rect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the target layer and that it adds an outline, but omits whether it replaces an existing outline, permission/auth requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive. A write operation with zero annotation coverage demands more.

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-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a compact args list. No filler; every element serves to clarify the operation.

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 operation and all parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a board-mutating tool with zero annotation and zero schema description coverage, it lacks usage context and critical behavioral details (e.g., overwrite semantics), leaving notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must document parameters. It does so for all five: top-left and bottom-right corners in mm, and outline stroke width in mm. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though it does not restate the schema's default for width_mm.

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 (add) and resource (rectangular board outline) and the target layer (Edge.Cuts), which implicitly distinguishes it from generic drawing tools like add_rectangle. However, it does not name or contrast with any alternative sibling, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., add_rectangle, add_line) or when not to use it. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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