confirm_input_preparation

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: source board untouched, revision_token single use, unhandled copper text invalidates a clean baseline, input_floor carries grading_status and certified: false (not a verdict), and pcb_path/source_pcb/output_pcb relationships are explained.

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-loads the core action and keeps every sentence informative, but the dense parentheticals and multi-clause sentences make it heavier to parse than necessary for a tool definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: output_pcb, baseline, unhandled, input_floor with grading_status/certified, pcb_path, and source_pcb are all covered, along with the workflow position.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains parity values and parity_reason, and the single-use nature of revision_token, though pcb_path's role is only implied through the source_pcb distinction rather than stated outright.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: applies a proposal from propose_input_preparation, writes a NEW prepared board revision, re-pins the rule baseline, and reports input_floor. This clearly distinguishes it from its proposal sibling and from pin_rule_baseline.

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?

Gives explicit ordering constraints: runs once per board, BEFORE the pin_rule_baseline used for routing, never inside an attempt, and tells the agent to use the returned output_pcb and baseline thereafter. It also names verify_board as the only source of a verdict.

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