pcb_sync_from_schematic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a file-based operation modifying the .kicad_pcb file and that it can replace mismatched footprints. However, it leaves several behavioral aspects unexplained, such as the meaning of allow_open_board, use_net_names, or the effect of grid/scale/origin parameters on placement.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with a clear summary, and each sentence adds essential information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise while still covering key behavior.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., open project, schematic loaded) and does not explain the majority of input parameters. It provides a high-level workflow but leaves significant gaps for a tool with eight parameters and no annotation support.

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%, yet the description only explains one parameter (replace_mismatched) and vaguely mentions data sources like schematic references and rotations. The remaining seven parameters (grid_mm, scale_x, scale_y, origin_x_mm, origin_y_mm, use_net_names, allow_open_board) are completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool syncs missing PCB footprints from schematic footprint assignments, with a specific verb ('sync') and resource (PCB footprints). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pcb_auto_place_by_schematic by framing this as a file-based footprint-add operation for initial board bring-up.

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 phrase 'intended for initial board bring-up' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It also explains the effect of the replace_mismatched parameter, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use pcb_auto_place_by_schematic instead.

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