Sync Schematic To Board

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

With destructiveHint=true already in annotations, the description adds valuable context about the tool's dependency and state effects: without it, the board lacks footprints and net assignments. It explains why the destructive action is necessary, going beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the equivalent UI command, the mandatory ordering, and the consequences of skipping it. It is front-loaded with the main verb and highly efficient.

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 tool's mutating nature and the annotation, the description covers purpose, timing, and consequences well. It does not detail what specifically happens to existing board data, but the destructiveHint annotation covers that, and the output schema presumably handles return value documentation. Overall, it is complete for the provided context.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for both schematicPath and boardPath. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Import the schematic netlist into the PCB board' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies by referencing the KiCAD F8 shortcut and distinguishes it from dependent tools like place_component and route_pad_to_pad, ensuring no ambiguity.

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 gives explicit timing instructions ('MUST be called after the schematic is complete and before placing or routing components') and warns of consequences if skipped. It does not directly compare with sibling tools but provides a clear sequence context, which earns a strong but not perfect score.

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