Define PCB design constraints and compile KiCad fabrication minima for a project revision, creating a child revision with board, net, placement, and routing rules.
Create a child revision containing validated design intent and compiled KiCad minima.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| constraints | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is known. The description adds that this creates a child revision containing validated intent and compiled minima, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits permissions, reversibility, validation failure behavior, and side effects.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a concise API definition.
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 large nested constraints schema, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. It communicates the core operation but leaves the agent without adequate detail about required arguments, constraint semantics, validation behavior, or return effects.
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 it only loosely alludes to the content of the constraints object ('design intent', 'KiCad minima'). It gives no meaning for project and revision, nor any structure or format guidance for the many nested constraint fields.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('child revision') and clarifies the content ('validated design intent and compiled KiCad minima'). It is clear enough to distinguish from read-only siblings like inspect_pcb_revision or list_pcb_revisions, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or clarify its relationship to the broader PCB workflow.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools for setting constraints or creating revisions. The agent must infer from the description that this is the appropriate tool, but nothing prevents confusion with siblings like submit_pcb_completion or propose_pcb_layouts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.