confirm_silkscreen_minimums

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=false), it discloses that the source board is untouched, that a NEW revision is written beside it, that revision_token is single-use, and that both gates remain stale until verify_board runs. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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 action and effect, then the ordering and return-path guidance. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; the parenthetical about output_pcb/pcb_path/source_pcb is a bit crammed but justified.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the returned fields and tells the agent to continue from the returned path. Combined with the single-use token warning and the verify_board caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does explain revision_token is single-use and clarifies pcb_path is the source board (returned separately as source_pcb). It does not state where the token comes from or its format, leaving a small gap.

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 ('Apply ... proposal'), the exact resource it consumes (propose_silkscreen_minimums) and the effect (writes a NEW board revision with raised text verified by reload). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling propose_silkscreen_minimums immediately.

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 pipeline placement ('silkscreen_minimums -> pin_rule_baseline -> pour step -> routing') and names verify_board as the only certifier, which routes the agent correctly. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. missing/expired token handling), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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