submit_pcb_clearance_repair

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, so the agent knows it mutates but not dangerously. The description adds that native gates reject regressions and it 'never releases', which is extra behavioral context. But it omits permission/auth requirements, what qualifies as a regression, and what happens on failure.

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?

Very terse, a single compact sentence. Front-loaded verb. However, the extreme brevity may sacrifice necessary detail for this complex repair tool.

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 complex, mutation-oriented PCB repair submission tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and many similar siblings, the description is far too thin. It should clarify the repair scope, preconditions, and relationship to other submit_* tools.

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 and it does not. It never defines what 'nets', 'region', 'project', or 'revision' should contain, nor the expected format for the ROI or net identifiers.

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 verb and resource: 'Queue ... F.Cu joint movement', which is somewhat specific. But it's terse jargon and doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like submit_pcb_repair or submit_pcb_reference_repair.

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 guidance given on when to use this versus the many other submit_pcb_* repair siblings. The 'explicit ROI' constraint implies a usage condition, but alternatives are never mentioned.

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