proj_sync_schematic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the compilation steps, before-state mapping capture, silent-mode invocation with specific flags, recompilation, and delta reporting. It also flags the important caveat that older Altium versions may still show a dialog, surfaced via dialog_may_have_opened.

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 front-loaded with purpose and UI equivalent, then gives useful behavioral mechanics. However, the explicit 'Returns:' list duplicates information already available in the output schema and could be trimmed, costing some conciseness.

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 a complex, state-changing sync tool with no annotations and a separate output schema, the description covers what it does, how it attempts silent execution, what can go wrong on older versions, and how that is reported. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and the empty schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Push PCB changes back to schematic (back-annotate ECO).' It states the direction of synchronization and names the Altium UI equivalent, making it distinguishable from the forward-sync sibling proj_sync_pcb. The reference to 'Mirror of update_pcb' is a minor naming inconsistency but does not obscure purpose.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this is the PCB-to-schematic back-annotation operation, equivalent to Design > Update Schematic. The direction implies the alternative, proj_sync_pcb, but it does not explicitly name that sibling or state when-not to use this tool, which keeps it below a 5.

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