Discard Or Reload

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

The description explicitly discloses that the current in-memory PCB state is discarded, which adds meaningful information beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed (unsaved in-memory changes). It does not mention possible confirmation prompts or failure modes, but the annotation already sets the destructive context.

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, concise sentence with the key information front-loaded. No filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers the core destructive action. However, given the existence of closely related sibling tools (reload_board, open_board), the lack of any usage distinction leaves the context incomplete for an agent deciding between tools.

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?

The only parameter, boardPath, is fully described in the schema with 'Optional .kicad_pcb path; defaults to current board.' The description adds no extra parameter information, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score 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 specifies the action: discard in-memory PCB state and reload from disk. It distinguishes itself from simple reload operations by emphasizing the discard step, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tool reload_board, so it lacks 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reload_board or open_board. The description implies usage (when you want to discard changes) but offers no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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