submit_pcb_auto_repair

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the additive-only default, that neckdown/fanout need explicit opt-in, and the "Never manufactures" guarantee. It does not explain the async job/return handle, but the annotation-lowered bar makes this a solid 4.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with the core action first and constraints after; little waste. The telegraphic style ("Never manufactures") is terse but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 an async mutation with a nested options object and no output schema, the description covers scope, defaults, and a follow-up pointer (read job detail, retry from it), but omits what the call returns (job id?), prerequisites, and any auth or rate considerations. Adequate but with visible 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 schema names options and defaults but explains nothing semantically. The description partially compensates by describing the additive-only default and which options (neckdown/fanout) enable extra behavior, but it says nothing about project, revision, or the other options fields (max_attempts, time_budget_seconds, etc.).

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?

States a specific action ("Queue automatic target discovery, bounded proposals and native checks") on a specific resource, and the phrase "No coordinates required" implicitly separates it from coordinate-driven siblings like submit_pcb_repair or submit_pcb_clearance_repair. The purpose is clear, but it never names an actual sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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?

"No coordinates required" and "Default additive-only; optional neckdown/fanout require explicit options" imply the operating conditions, and "Read job detail for the retained revision and retry from it" hints at the follow-up flow. However, it never states when to prefer this over submit_pcb_repair, submit_pcb_reference_repair, or diagnose_pcb_repair, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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