pcb_build_from_project

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it discloses that this is a mutating orchestrator that creates nets and binds pads in two IPC round-trips, that it replaces an otherwise unscriptable ECO transfer, and that it reports per-item failures. It stops short of saying what happens to pads already bound to a net or whether the operation is idempotent/atomic on partial failure, which matters for a bulk mutation.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded with the core action, followed by mechanics and then sequence, which is the right order. The 'Returns:' block duplicates what the output schema already expresses and the hard-wrapped docstring formatting adds noise, but no sentence is wasted.

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 state-mutating orchestrator with one optional param, the description covers prerequisites, sequencing, exclusions, input format, and failure reporting. Since an output schema exists, the return section is a bonus rather than a requirement, leaving nothing essential missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter entirely, and it does: the CSV is described as tabular output from proj_export_netlist with the exact row shape (component,pin,pin_name,net), and the empty default is defined as pulling the compiled netlist from the open project. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build the PCB's net set and pad connectivity from the netlist') and unpacks it into concrete mechanics: derive nets and (designator, pin, net) bindings, create missing nets, bind pads. It also names the two internal tools it composes and explicitly excludes footprint placement, so an agent can separate it from pcb_place_components and pcb_bind_pad_nets at a glance.

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?

Gives an explicit order of operations: place components, then run this, then verify with proj_compare_sch_pcb. It also states the negative case ('It does NOT place footprints -- pcb_place_components exists for that') and names the producer of the optional CSV input (proj_export_netlist with net_format="tabular").

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