pcb_attach_external_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that the action is marked complete and that the linked finding's verified/confidence/source fields are updated based on the result. This is a transparent disclosure of the primary state mutations, though it does not discuss reversibility or the error-handling path.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the main action. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose or side effects.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains what happens upon invocation, which is the primary need. It could clarify the error path (what happens when 'error' is passed) but the core behavior is sufficiently covered for a simple state-update tool.

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 schema covers all parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics by linking the 'result' parameter to the update of specific finding fields. This goes beyond the schema's bare 'Raw result returned by the sibling MCP' and helps an agent understand how the result is interpreted.

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 the specific verb 'Feed' and names the resource ('a sibling-MCP result', 'the session') and the outcomes ('marks the matching action complete', 'updates the linked finding's verified/confidence/source fields'). It clearly distinguishes this bookkeeping/result-attachment tool from the many analysis-focused sibling tools.

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 establishes clear context: it is used after a sibling MCP has produced a result, and mentions the orchestrator's role. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the contextual trigger is plainly indicated.

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