jlcpcb_pcb_upload_blind_via_hole_img

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It adds the prerequisite 'Requires API credentials', which is useful authentication context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects, file format restrictions, or what happens after upload, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two brief sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no superfluous information, efficiently conveying purpose and credential requirements.

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 simple upload tool with two well-documented parameters, the description provides the necessary context: purpose, prerequisite, and scope. While it lacks explicit return-value information (no output schema), this is a minor gap for a straightforward upload operation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'file_path' describes the local path and reading behavior, and 'file_name' explains the override and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, aligning with the baseline of 3 for full 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 uses a specific verb ('upload'), identifies the resource ('blind/buried-via stackup image'), and states the scope ('for boards that need one'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'jlcpcb_pcb_upload_gerber', which uploads gerber files.

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 phrase 'for boards that need one' implies the conditional use case, indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, though the resource type distinguishes it from related upload tools.

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