add_zone_rect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that refill zones after creating and that it wraps add_zone, but it omits mutation side effects, permission needs, and what happens to existing overlapping zones, leaving notable gaps for a write operation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then presents parameters in a clean Args list. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description is only partially complete. It thoroughly documents parameters but lacks usage guidance and behavioral safety details, so an agent still has to infer important context.

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 does: it explains all nine parameters, including coordinate corner semantics, layer names, net names, optional name, priority, and refill. Examples are given for layers and net_name, adding meaningful clarity beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a rectangular copper zone'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_zone by identifying itself as a 'convenience wrapper around add_zone', so an agent can tell it apart 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?

It names the underlying alternative (add_zone) and implies this tool is for rectangular zones, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over add_zone or other shape tools, nor does it list exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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