run_jobset

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: kicad-cli receives a copy of the jobset, never the original, because it rewrites or deletes a jobset it cannot parse — which is exactly why destructiveHint=false is safe. It also defines failure semantics (error when nothing ran or a job failed) and says the error carries kicad-cli's counts. That is real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then scoping and safety behavior, then args. Every sentence carries information; the only slight redundancy is restating the copy behavior twice ('never the file' after explaining the copy).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers scoping, mutation safety, and error behavior. The remaining gap is edge-case handles (what happens if the folder contains zero or multiple .kicad_pro files), which an agent might want before invoking.

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 description coverage is 0% and the schema only types jobset_path as a string, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, identifying it as a path to a .kicad_jobset file. That is the key disambiguation an agent needs, though no format or validation detail is added.

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 states a specific verb and resource — run a KiCad jobset file, executing every output it defines — which is clearly distinct from the single-artifact export_* siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the scope (all outputs defined by a jobset) makes the boundary inferable.

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 supplies useful operating context (the jobset runs against the one .kicad_pro in its own folder, and relative output folders resolve against that folder), but never states when to pick this over the individual export_* tools or what prerequisites (project layout, kicad-cli availability) must hold. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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