Prepare PCB external layout or routing import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them by clarifying that no PCB change occurs until an exact confirmation phrase is supplied. It adds real value with 'geometry validation, safety preview, and exact confirmation phrase', though it doesn't say where that phrase comes from or what the preview contains.

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 tight sentences with the operation and the format list front-loaded and the safety caveat placed last where it matters. The phrase 'exact confirmation phrase' is slightly underspecified for the space it occupies, but there is no filler.

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 10-parameter, nested-object, mutation-staging tool with no output schema, the description leaves the confirmation mechanics and the expected return (preview summary, token, validation errors) unexplained. It is adequate to identify the tool but not to drive the full stage-confirm sequence without opening the schema and a sibling.

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 90%, so the schema already explains format, content, filePath, dryRunOnly, netMapping, and layerMapping. The description only echoes the format enum and adds no guidance on the nested target object, timeoutMs, or how layerMapping interacts with targetLayer, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('validates and stages') and resource ('external layout or routing files') and enumerates the four supported formats (Specctra SES, router JSON, layout JSON, DXF). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the native-layout siblings (easyeda_prepare_pcb_layout, easyeda_prepare_pcb_routing) by the 'external' framing, but never names them explicitly.

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 implied usage context ('Does not modify the PCB until confirmed') that suggests a two-step stage-then-confirm flow, and the presence of easyeda_confirmed_action alongside hints at that. However, it never states when to choose this over prepare_pcb_layout or prepare_pcb_routing, nor when to prefer a dry run.

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