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

Annotations already cover readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds genuinely new context: the guest-token auth path, that no quote allowance is consumed, and that no manufacturing or purchase occurs. It also states what comes back (normalized parameters, review revision, warnings, editable review URL). Minor tension with readOnlyHint=true given that a revision and review link are produced.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by return content, auth/cost implications, and side-effect scope. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 tool with a large nested parameter object, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it flags input alternatives, auth, cost, and that no fulfillment occurs. It could note that at least one geometry source (kicadPcb or parameters) is expected, since no parameters are required.

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 100% at the top level, so the schema already documents kicadPcb, quantity, parameters, and accessToken. The description only restates the input alternatives ('KiCad PCB text or dimensions') without adding format, precedence, or interaction rules beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 set (prepare or revise) and resource (enclosure), plus the accepted input forms (KiCad PCB text or dimensions). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling quote_enclosure by noting 'no quote allowance', though it never names the sibling. Clear purpose, only weak explicit sibling 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?

It gives clear conditions: use a guest token, this call does not consume quote allowance, and no manufacturing or purchase results — which effectively routes quoting workflows to the quote_* siblings. It stops short of naming quote_enclosure or quoting a session prerequisite, so no explicit alternatives list.

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