add_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that width_mm defaults to the net's netclass width, that layer defaults to F.Cu, and that net_name must already exist on the board (a real precondition). It omits any note on permission/board-state requirements, whether the track is validated against clearance, or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose and the sibling redirect in the first two sentences, followed by a compact per-argument list. Every line carries information the schema does not; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, defaults, preconditions, and alternatives, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/validation behavior and any hint about required board state.

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%, so the description must compensate entirely and it does: all seven parameters are documented with units (mm) and meaning, and it explains the non-obvious semantic that a null width_mm resolves to the netclass width. Layer examples ('F.Cu', 'B.Cu') and the net existence constraint add value the schema lacks.

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 ('Add a straight copper track segment') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings add_arc_track, add_track_path, and route_pads by scoping to a single straight segment. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool toward route_pads and add_track_path with a stated reason ('they avoid hand-copied coordinates'). It does not spell out the condition under which add_track itself is the correct choice, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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