studio_push_context

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

With annotations empty, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies an update operation but does not state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing context. The mention of 'pushed by KiCad Studio' hints at a prior context but offers no additional transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, using a single clear sentence without redundant information. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, lacking any structural breakdown or additional details that could aid comprehension.

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 tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the context being updated, parameter behaviors, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, and the description fails to compensate by explaining any parameters. The single sentence does not mention active_file, file_type, drc_errors, or any other parameters, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('active IDE context pushed by KiCad Studio'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only context-related tool, but the term 'IDE context' is not further explained, preventing a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or suitable scenarios. The absence of any usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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