create_designStart a new design from the user's brief (what the board must do, its interfaces, power, size and constraints). Returns the design_id every other tool takes and the web_url where the user follows the design. Uses no generation quota: the work is done by you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | Yes | The design brief, in the user's terms plus anything you clarified with them. | |
| title | No | A short name for the design. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds two genuinely non-structured behaviors: that it consumes no generation quota ('the work is done by you') and what it returns (design_id, web_url), which matters because there is no 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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return values, then the quota note. Every sentence carries information and none repeats structured fields.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming both returned values (design_id, web_url). Combined with brief content guidance and the quota note, an agent has everything needed to call this confidently.
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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by enumerating what the brief should cover ('what the board must do, its interfaces, power, size and constraints'), giving the agent concrete authoring guidance beyond the schema's generic wording.
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 ('Start a new design') and immediately elaborates on what the brief must contain (interfaces, power, size, constraints), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not name the potentially overlapping siblings (start_board, submit_circuit), so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
The opening phrase 'Start a new design' implies the fresh-start context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus siblings like start_board or submit_circuit. Usage is inferable 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.