jlcpcb_pcb_upload_gerber

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires API credentials, reads a local file, and returns a fileKey. It also specifies the input is a zip archive of Gerber files. While it doesn't detail error handling, file size limits, or post-upload behavior, it covers the essential behavioral traits for this type of tool, placing it above the minimal 3.

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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action, then explains the return value and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean and easy to scan.

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 file-upload tool with two parameters, the description is largely complete: it explains the upload purpose, the return value, and the required credentials. It also ties the tool into the broader PCB ordering workflow. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the mention of the fileKey return value. Minor omissions like file size limits or failure modes prevent a 5, but the tool is sufficiently contextualized.

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 complete descriptions for both parameters (file_path and file_name), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds extra semantic meaning by specifying the file must be a Gerber archive (zip), which clarifies the expected format for file_path. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'file to upload' wording, justifying a 4.

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: 'upload a Gerber archive (zip) for quoting/ordering.' It uses a specific verb ('upload') and resource ('Gerber archive'), and it differentiates from sibling tools like jlcpcb_pcb_calculate_price and jlcpcb_tdp_upload_model by focusing on the upload step. The phrase 'Official PCB API' adds authority and context.

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 provides clear usage context by stating it returns a fileKey to pass to downstream tools (jlcpcb_pcb_calculate_price / jlcpcb_pcb_create_order). This implies it should be used first in the PCB ordering workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., jlcpcb_tdp_upload_model for 3D models) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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