submit_pcb_reference_repair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond them: it discloses that source rules/placement are preserved and only 'native improvements' are adopted, which tells the agent what is and isn't mutated. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rollback, or job/queue semantics.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded ('Queue local multi-net ECO repair...') and no filler. The trailing 'Not whole-board replacement...' fragment earns its place as a scope exclusion, though the dense jargon costs some readability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers scope and preservation semantics but omits parameter meaning, job/queue behavior, and any link to the other repair tools. Adequate as a starting point, but gaps remain for a 4-param, sibling-heavy operation.

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 none of the four required parameters (project, revision, reference_project, reference_revision) is explained. The phrase 'explicit compatible, natively verified reference' loosely hints at the reference_* pair but gives no format, lookup, or compatibility detail, leaving the parameters essentially undocumented.

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 verb (queue) and resource (local multi-net ECO repair) plus a key qualifier ('using an explicit compatible, natively verified reference'), which separates it conceptually from auto/clearance repairs. However it never names the sibling submit_pcb_repair, submit_pcb_auto_repair, or submit_pcb_clearance_repair tools, so the differentiation against the crowded repair family is left to inference from jargon.

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 clause 'using an explicit compatible, natively verified reference' implies the precondition for selecting this tool, and 'Not whole-board replacement or manufacturing authorization' gives an explicit exclusion. But with four sibling *_repair tools, no alternative is named or compared, so the when-to-use 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.