submit_pcb_repair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — 'Queue' implies asynchronous submission and 'Never releases manufacturing files' bounds the side effects — but says nothing about what 'approved' removal IDs require, permissions, or how the job is tracked afterward.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its scope front-loaded before the side-effect guarantee. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 6-parameter submission tool with no output schema, 0% schema coverage and four sibling repair variants, the definition leaves too much open: no return value or job-tracking hint, no differentiation from siblings, and half the parameters unexplained.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: 'nets', 'ROI' and 'approved copper removal IDs' map to nets, region and remove_ids and add real meaning (pre-approval workflow). It says nothing about passes, project, revision, or expected formats such as region being a numeric array.

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 (repair) plus its scope (scoped, explicit nets, ROI, approved copper removal IDs). However, it never distinguishes itself from the three sibling repair submitters (submit_pcb_auto_repair, submit_pcb_clearance_repair, submit_pcb_reference_repair), leaving the agent to guess which repair variant applies.

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 when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no prerequisite or exclusion. With four near-identical repair submitters in the sibling list, this absence is a real selection hazard rather than a minor omission.

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