Prepare Board Outline Mutation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which could mislead an agent into thinking this writes to the PCB; the description usefully corrects that by making clear this only stages a mutation and that execution happens elsewhere, so it adds real value beyond the annotations. However, it does not warn that clearExisting defaults to true (i.e., the staged action will delete existing outline primitives) or that idempotentHint=false means repeated prepares produce new mutationIds. With annotations already carrying the safety profile, a 3 fits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource, then the required follow-up call. No filler, though the phrase 'Prepares creation, rectangular/polygonal sizing, clearing, or segment modification' is slightly clunky compared to just naming the actions.

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 15-parameter, nested-target, prepare-style tool with no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (mutationId and confirmation phrase) and where to take it, which is the critical missing piece. Gaps remain around target validation and the destructive effect of clearExisting=true, but the schema covers most parameter detail.

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 93%, so the schema already documents every parameter's meaning and per-action applicability. The description only loosely maps operation names to the action enum and adds nothing about the target object, timeouts, or how primitiveId selects a segment. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (Prepares) and resource (board outline on the active PCB) and enumerates the operation families matching the action enum (rectangular/polygonal sizing, clearing, segment modification). It never names the read-side sibling easyeda_get_board_outline, so the differentiation from that tool is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

The second sentence gives the essential workflow rule: the returned mutationId plus exact confirmation phrase must be passed to easyeda_confirmed_action for execution. It does not state when to choose this over a read-only outline inspection or when not to use it (e.g., if the board is locked or a target is missing).

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