add_track_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that both ends are checked for connection and spacing, that rollback_on_conflict reverts the path on any clearance problem, and that net_name must already exist. It stops short of describing failure modes or return behavior, but that is partly covered by the output schema.

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 purpose sentence followed by a clean Args block; each line earns its place. Slightly loose phrasing in 'check both ends are connected and nothing is too close' keeps it from a 5.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers geometry format, net/layer requirements, width defaulting, and rollback behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Only permissions/preconditions beyond net existence are unaddressed.

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, and it documents all five parameters: the points value formats and the 'at least 2' constraint, the existence requirement for net_name with examples, layer meaning, width defaulting to the netclass width, and the exact rollback semantics of rollback_on_conflict.

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 ('draw a connected multi-segment track') and the scope ('through a list of points in one step'), which implicitly separates it from the single-segment sibling add_track. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'in one step' and the connectedness check, but the description never says when to prefer this over add_track, add_arc_track, route_pads, or autoroute, nor any prerequisites beyond 'net must exist'. Clear context, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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