import_pcb_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds the meaningful behavioral link that parent_revision corresponds to an external ECO revision. However, it does not explain what side effects a snapshot has on existing revisions or what 'sidecars' are.

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 that are front-loaded with the core action before the parameter hint. No filler, though the extremely terse phrasing leaves it under-explained for its complexity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, a nested constraints object, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits what the tool returns, what constraints applies to, and how the snapshot relates to the revision lifecycle covered by siblings.

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 carry the full burden for 4 parameters. It only clarifies parent_revision ('external ECO revision') and leaves project, board_path, and the entire constraints object undocumented. Three of four parameters get no semantic help.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Snapshot a KiCad board and project sidecars.' This tells the agent it materializes a point-in-time state of a board plus auxiliary files. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like inspect_pcb_revision or list_pcb_revisions, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 only guidance is 'Use parent_revision for an external ECO revision,' which implies a usage context for one parameter. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as inspect_pcb_revision or pcb_project_history, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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