set_copper_layer_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that reducing layers destroys content, that the operation is irreversible, and that confirm=True is required to apply it. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens to count on failure, so it falls just short of full coverage.

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 destructive warning is front-loaded and the args are listed compactly. Slight redundancy between 'Pass confirm=True to proceed' and 'confirm: Must be True to apply the change' costs a point but the structure is otherwise efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the destructive semantics, the confirmation gate, and both parameter meanings; only edge cases (e.g., invalid odd counts) and permissions 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% and the titles are bare ('Count', 'Confirm'), so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: count is the new layer count (with even/>=2 constraint) and confirm must be True to apply the change, adding real meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Set the number of copper layers') and immediately constrains it (must be even, >= 2). This is easily distinguished from read-only siblings like list_board_layers or get_stackup.

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?

Gives the precondition for applying the change (confirm=True) and the validity constraint on count, but does not say when to use this versus alternatives such as editing the stackup directly. Usage is implied by the constraint rather than framed as guidance.

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