confirm_board_outline

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

The description is highly transparent about system behavior: it validates the proposal using a 'fresh reload and a kicad-cli outline check,' confirms the source board remains untouched, and specifies the token is 'single use.'

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?

Despite its length, the description is extremely efficient, providing critical workflow and technical constraints without any extraneous filler, delivering high information density.

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 description is maximally complete for a complex, multi-step CAD process. It covers the input, the process (revision creation/validation), and the necessary next step (returning the new `pcb_path` to 'continue from that path').

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must provide all semantic value. It successfully explains the `revision_token` is single-use and clarifies that the input `pcb_path` is the 'source_pcb' while the output is the new revision path.

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 explicitly states its purpose is to 'Apply a propose_board_outline proposal' and details that it 'writes a NEW board revision with the outline and mounting holes,' making it uniquely identifiable within the CAD workflow.

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 provides a step-by-step 'Order for a project' (e.g., 'import_from_schematic -> board_outline -> board_rules'), which defines the exact sequence and context in which this tool must be used relative to its siblings.

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