submit_pcb_completion

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

Annotations only declare the safe-write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavior: input must be unrouted, output is a queued async job whose real attempts and best revision are only visible via polling. That async/limited-authority context is not recoverable from annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the scope/capability summary is front-loaded, then constraints, then the required next action. Every sentence carries 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?

No output schema exists, and the description handles that by telling the agent the submission is asynchronous and results must be retrieved by polling the engineering job. Together with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete; only the returned job identifier/handle is left implicit.

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 the description never mentions 'project', 'revision', or any of the many CompletionOptions fields (candidate_count, route_passes, repair_cycles, placement_mode, etc.). The capability categories loosely map to option groups, but no parameter names, defaults, or ranges are clarified, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

Specific verb ('Queue') plus an enumerated scope: bounded layout candidates, whole-board routing, native checks, automatic repair. This sets it apart from narrower siblings like autoroute_pcb_revision or submit_pcb_auto_repair, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Unrouted inputs only'), an explicit exclusion ('no manufacturing authorization' - i.e., not the release path), and a follow-up step (poll the engineering job). No alternative tool is named, but the context and boundaries are well defined.

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