confirm_board_rules

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, it discloses that a NEW revision is written beside the source, the source remains untouched, returned paths are output_pcb/pcb_path while the input is source_pcb, revision_token is single use, and the grading field is not a verdict. It also explains stale gates and baseline invalidation, which are critical behavioral traits.

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 the core action, and every sentence carries operational value for this complex workflow. The single dense paragraph and long inline sequence list make it harder to scan than a structured list, so it falls short of a 5.

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 destructive, multi-step workflow tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, it supplies the needed context: sequencing, return paths, token lifetime, baseline invalidation, and which sibling certifies results. Minor omissions like exact grading values are not essential to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that revision_token is single use, defines parity values and parity_reason handoff, and clarifies that pcb_path is the source board while output_pcb/pcb_path is the new revision; however, it does not fully define pcb_path format or exactly when parity_reason is required.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Apply a propose_board_rules proposal,' then specifies that it writes a new project revision, pins the rule baseline, and grades it. This clearly distinguishes confirm_board_rules from propose_board_rules and verify_board by naming the confirm action and its resulting 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 states the prerequisite proposal, gives an explicit project sequence ('Order for a project: ...'), notes the revision_token is single use, and tells the agent to re-run verify_board on output_pcb after rule changes. It also says both gates are stale until verify_board runs and that only verify_board certifies, routing the agent to the correct alternative.

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