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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: required input format (base64 ZIP with specific contents), a size ceiling (~18 MB), and the return value (design_id plus a first get_board_info).

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?

Two densely packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The format, size, CLI mapping, and return value each earn their place.

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?

No output schema exists, so disclosing the return (design_id and an initial get_board_info) is valuable and present. Format and size constraints are covered; only the ancillary parameters (brief, title) are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description usefully clarifies zip_base64 (zipped folder, base64, ~18 MB) but says nothing about brief, title, or board_file, which the schema only partially explains. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 ('Bring an existing KiCad project in as a board workspace') and scopes it to importing a full existing project, which separates it from creation/empty-board siblings like create_design or start_board. An agent can immediately tell what this does.

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 (import an existing KiCad project when you have a ZIP of one) but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g. add_project_files, upload_board, create_design). The CLI hint (`koppar import <folder>`) adds some context but not selection criteria.

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