confirm_schematic_import

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the source board is untouched, a new revision is written beside it, an unresolved footprint aborts the entire confirm with nothing written, revision_token is single use, and gate results are stale until verify_board runs.

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 action and consequence of failure, and nearly every clause carries information. There is mild redundancy in restating 'writes a NEW board revision beside the source (the source is untouched)' after the opening sentence.

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?

Covers failure atomicity, token lifetime, output naming (output_pcb / pcb_path vs source_pcb), pipeline ordering, and verification routing, which is what an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema. Only prerequisite auth/permission behavior and where the new revision file lands are unstated.

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 does explain revision_token as single-use and clarifies pcb_path semantics ('the board you passed in is source_pcb', output returned as output_pcb). What it omits is any format/token-sourcing guidance for obtaining the revision_token.

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 precise verb and resource ('Apply a propose_schematic_import proposal: writes a NEW board revision with the schematic's footprints and every pad net') and clearly positions itself against the sibling propose_schematic_import. An agent can distinguish propose vs. confirm without opening either schema.

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 the prerequisite (must follow propose_schematic_import), the explicit pipeline order for a project (import_from_schematic -> board_outline -> board_rules -> input_preparation -> silkscreen_minimums -> pin_rule_baseline -> pour step -> routing), and routes certification elsewhere ('only verify_board certifies').

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