build_pcb_manufacturing_release

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description usefully adds that a ZIP hash-manifest is produced and that nothing is emitted unless the reverify succeeds, but it omits permission requirements, where artifacts are written, and what happens to prior releases.

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?

A single tight sentence with the outcome and its condition front-loaded; every clause carries information and 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 write-side release-build tool with no output schema and fully undocumented parameters, the definition leaves major gaps: artifact destination, failure behavior, and how project/revision are identified are all unstated. The annotations cover safety only, not the operational detail an agent needs.

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 both required parameters (project, revision) are bare strings. The description says nothing about how project/revision are specified (name, ID, path?), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific verbs (reverify, export, create) and names concrete artifacts (manufacturing files, hash-manifest ZIP), so an agent knows this is the terminal build/release step. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like verify_pcb_release_archive or verify_pcb_revision, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'only on success' suggests it should be run after verification passes, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites named, and no routing to alternatives such as verify_pcb_release_archive. An agent can infer the context but is not told it.

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