propose_silkscreen_minimums

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it writes nothing, returns revision_token none when there is nothing to raise, never moves/hides/re-layers text, and leaves overlap verification to verify_board. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false.

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 dry-run purpose and is dense with useful constraints. It is somewhat long and includes workflow/revision details that also pertain to confirm tools, but almost every sentence adds operational value.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description explains the key return values and statuses: before/after sizes, unhandled items, revision_token, and output_pcb/pcb_path from confirm. It also covers the verification dependency and source-board untouched semantics, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 compensate. It documents defaults and meaning for min_height_mm and min_thickness_mm, and contextualizes pcb_path as the source board, but it does not explain the optional output_dir parameter.

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 states a specific operation: a dry run that raises silkscreen text below fab minimums on a new revision, lists before/after sizes and unhandled text, and returns a revision_token. It clearly distinguishes this propose/dry-run behavior from the confirm sibling that writes a new board revision.

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 gives explicit project-order guidance and explains that overlaps should be reported by verify_board rather than handled here. It also implies the confirm flow, but it does not explicitly name confirm_silkscreen_minimums as the next alternative.

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