autoroute_pcb_revision

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds the critical constraint that only unrouted boards are supported, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe side effects on the project/revision state, whether it mutates files in place, or how long the external Freerouting step might take.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and then the constraint. It is appropriately sized for a low-complexity tool, though the second sentence could be slightly clearer about what 'supported' means.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description is minimal but barely adequate. It omits parameter documentation, expected outcomes, error conditions (e.g., unsupported board), and any indication of how to handle the resulting SES file. For a mutating pipeline tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 but does not. It never explains what 'project' and 'revision' refer to (likely an existing project name and revision identifier) nor what 'passes' controls in the autorouting algorithm. The description leaves all parameter meanings to inference.

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 names a specific action (autoroute), the resource (PCB revision), and the mechanism (export DSN, run Freerouting, import SES). This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like inspect_pcb_revision or verify_pcb_revision. The only slight gap is that it does not explicitly state why one would choose this over other repair/layout submissions.

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 'Unrouted supported boards only' explicitly states a precondition, which is valuable. However, it does not name an alternative for already-routed boards or reference sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer that other submission tools handle those cases.

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