Create Board From Schematic

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context that after creating the file, it updates the PCB with footprints and nets, but it does not mention overwrite behavior or other side effects. This is useful but not rich detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the entire process without wasted words. It states the action, source, and result efficiently.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown) and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It does not explain edge cases like existing board paths or errors, but for a moderate-complexity creation tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it is not necessary given the high coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Create a new .kicad_pcb file from a schematic, then update the PCB'. It identifies the resource (.kicad_pcb file), the source (schematic), and the outcome (footprints and nets present). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'open_board' or 'sync_schematic_to_board'.

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 description implies usage by specifying 'Create a new .kicad_pcb file from a schematic', making the scenario clear. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this over alternatives such as 'sync_schematic_to_board' for existing boards, but the 'new' keyword provides sufficient context for the intended use case.

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